Masterplan for North Blackburn Development Site: Public Consultation Report October 2016 2016

CONTENTS PAGE

1. Introduction 3

2. Background 3

3. Consultation process 4

4. Comments received 5

5. Conclusions 9

Appendix 1: Consultation material 11

Appendix 2: Consultation leaflet 10

Appendix 3: Boundary of draft masterplan and area of resident leaflet drop 37

Appendix 4: Newsletter, July 2016 41

Appendix 5: Residents’ consultation responses 42

Appendix 6: Council response to key themes/issues in residents’ feedback

Appendix 7: Statutory agency feedback and Council response

1. INTRODUCTION (adopted in January 2011) which sets out the Council’s vision and overall spatial strategy for the development and growth of the borough to 2026. A copy of the 1.1 A key consideration for the preparation of the masterplan document is available here. was to ensure that the form and functioning of the development takes into account, as much as possible, 2.2 The second part of the Local Plan is the Site Allocations local issues and the concerns of residents and statutory and Development Management Policies plan (known as agencies. With this in mind public consultation took place the Local Plan Part 2). This plan seeks to support the at an early stage in the preparation of the masterplan to implementation of the Core Strategy by identifying enable any supplementary work needed to inform the strategic land allocations for a range of uses including shaping of the masterplan framework and accompanying employment, housing and green infrastructure that are design principles to be undertaken. The intention is that essential for delivering the Council's objectives for the this report sits alongside other baseline/technical evidence development of the borough to 2026. Additionally it sets of the principal factors that have influenced the content out Development Management policies which will be used and approach to development set out in the masterplan. to assess every planning application for development within the borough. The Part 2 plan was adopted in 1.2 This report provides details of public consultation carried December 2015 and is available to review here. th out over a six week period from Monday 14 March 2016 th to Monday 25 April 2016 on a range of issues and initial 2.3 In order to help meet the borough’s identified housing design concepts. It sets out the rationale for producing requirements as set out in the Core Strategy, the Local the masterplan and outlines the consultation Plan Part 2 identifies a package of 18 sites for residential arrangements. The report also provides a summary of the development including the North Blackburn Development main issues raised, Council actions to address these and Site;(Policy16/2). how these matters have been taken into account within the final version masterplan. 2.4 The Council has worked in collaboration with the site’s landowners, their agents and a land promoter to prepare 2. BACKGROUND the masterplan. Given the proposed scale of the development (450-550 new homes), the site’s separation 2.1 The Council’s Local Plan for Blackburn with Darwen along Barker Lane/Lammack Road into principally 2 parts, comprises of a series of documents which collectively multiple private ownerships and the likelihood that provide a policy framework for development in the development will take place in phases over a number of borough. The overarching document is the Core Strategy years it was considered essential that a framework and

supporting design principles are in place to ensure that - consultation material (copy exhibition boards) published overall all development is integrated, comprehensive and on the Council’s website; responsive to local needs. The masterplan will ensure that - consultation material was available to view at Blackburn the transition between different phases of development is Town Hall, and; seamless. -2 drop-in events were held at local venues.

2.5 The masterplan will also help to ensure that any 3.4 A copy of the consultation material is available to view on development incorporates appropriate infrastructure, the Council’s website. A copy is also provided in Appendix achieves high standards of design, retains important 1 for ease of reference. features and assets, and is sensitive to its location. It will inform developers of the Council’s expectations with 3.5 A total of 1347 leaflets were sent, mostly hand delivered, to regard to scheme content and design. residential properties and businesses in the surrounding area to notify the local community of the consultation, to 2.6 Once adopted the masterplan will be a material advise them where they could view the consultation consideration in the review of and decision making on material and how they could submit a response. A copy of every planning application for development on the site. the consultation leaflet is provided in Appendix 2 and a map which identifies the properties that the leaflets were sent to is provided in Appendix 3. 3. CONSULTATION PROCESS 3.6 A further 137 leaflets were sent to consultees on the 3.1 The consultation period extended over six weeks between Planning Strategy Team’s including Ribble Valley Borough Monday 14th March 2016 and Monday 25th April 2016. Council and the adjoining Ribble Valley Parish Councils.

3.2 The purpose of the consultation was essentially to ask 3.7 The consultation material set out a number of options for residents and stakeholders ‘when the development takes the return of comments including online via Survey place, what do you think it should look like?’ and to seek Monkey, via email or by post. local resident’s views on the key issues for the site that need to be taken into account in the masterplan and 3.8 During the consultation period, two community subsequent scheme detailing. engagement events took place. These were held on nd Tuesday 22 March 2016 at Pleckgate High School and on rd 3.3 The format of the consultation included:- Wednesday 23 March 2016 at Lammack Primary School. Both of these events were drop-in events including a

display of the consultation material/boards. They provided cases support for the development alongside providing members of the public with the opportunity to speak to local information. Council officers and local elected members about their thoughts/views on the initial design concepts. 4.4 Comments were invited on any aspect of the masterplan. However to help generate responses to key topics a series 3.9 A total of 40 residents attended the event at Pleckgate High of consultation questions were set out with the consultation School, and a further 71 residents attended the event at material. The questions were: Lammack Primary School. Altogether 111 residents.  What are your views on the masterplan framework so 3.10 In August 2016 a newsletter was distributed to all residents far? originally contacted at the commencement of the  Do you agree with the main issues that we have consultation. The newsletter outlined the comments considered in developing the draft masterplan? Are received, provided Council feedback and an update on there any others that should be taken into account? progress with the preparation of the masterplan. A copy of  Do you feel issues such as drainage and highways have the newsletter is provided in Appendix 4. been addressed sufficiently? If not, why not?  What are your views on the proposals for movements across the site? 4. COMMENTS RECEIVED  Do the proposals offer links to the key areas and facilities used by local residents? 4.1 A total of 81 responses were received during the  Do you have any comments on the proposals for consultation period. This included an online petition that incorporating green infrastructure into the had been signed by 304 people (as at 17/05/2016) development? objecting to a new road junction on Whinney Lane.  Do you agree with the character areas identified?  Please provide any additional comments that you may 4.2 An additional petition was received in July, signed have. principally by residents in Mellor, objecting to the development, principally the scale of development. 4.3 A summary of the comments received is provided below. A full record of resident’s feedback is provided in 4.3 Overall the responses included a wide range of Appendix 5. Appendix 6 sets out the Council’s response comments/observations including objections to the and how this has informed the final version masterplan. development as a whole or particular aspect and in many Appendix 7 details the feedback from statutory agencies and the Council’s response.

 Loss of green space; Overview of resident comments  Would like the green corridor to be a multi-use bridleway to allow residents to pursue healthy, active pursuits 4.4 Broadly, residents’ views fell into a number of recurring without having to use the main road; categories/themes. The key issues are presented below within  Consideration needs to be given to importance of links to the identified categories: biodiversity;  Sensitive habitats need to be protected; PRINCIPLE of DEVELOPMENT  Trees/hedgerows and watercourses need to be enhanced  Development should not take place as site is located to support habitats. within the Green Belt; Scale of DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN  Do not agree that the site should be developed when brownfield sites are available;  Concerns regarding the scale of development/proposed  Lack of affordable housing within the borough. number of units;  Loss of rural feel to the area and existing residents’ views; HIGHWAYS/ACCESS and connectivity  Views through the site to the wider countryside should be  Major concerns regarding potential access off Whinney retained and reflected in design principles; Lane. Residents feel this is inappropriate - it’s a narrow  Minimise impact of housing on Whinney Lane by and winding country lane which has no footpaths and is incorporating trees/green areas; used regularly by pedestrians. Concerned it will become a  Existing features such as dry stone walls need to be rat run linking through development to Mellor and on retained. towards Samlesbury; FLOOD RISK and SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE  Impact of increased volume of traffic on highway safety for cars and pedestrians using Whinney Lane;  Concerns over surface water flooding. There is already an  Increased congestion on local network; issue with flooding at the bottom of Barker Lane and  Too many junctions proposed onto Yew Tree Whinney Lane; Drive/Ramsgreave Drive;  Development should integrate SuDs.  Speed of traffic on Yew Tree Dive/Ramsgreave Drive needs to be addressed; IMPACT on AMENITY of EXISTING RESIDENTS  Access to Kay Fold Lodge needs to be retained.  Impact on amenity of existing residents, both during Loss of OPEN SPACE/ impact on WILDLIFE and BIODIVERSITY construction and as a result of the development;

 Impact on Ribble Valley residents, particularly those in transport options by those eventually occupying the new Mellor needs to be considered. homes;  Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required as part IMPACT on LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE of planning application;  Transport Assessment should take into consideration the  Impact of increased demand on infrastructure – GPs, bus potential impact of the development upon M65 at Junction 6 services, schools, shops; during peak times, the potential phasing of development and  Masterplan needs to include a site wide infrastructure be in accordance with DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic strategy. Road Network and Delivery of Sustainable Development; COUNCIL regard for resident’s comments  Transport Assessment should also identify ways the development will encourage uses of sustainable transport  Lack of confidence that the Council would take resident’s modes. comments into account in the masterplan;  Detailed proposals had already been completed. Network Rail

LOSS of VIEWS/COMPENSATION No comments to make.

 Will the Council be making compensation payments to Natural England residents for the loss of views from their homes and the detrimental impact of the development including  Welcome references to green spaces and corridors. Masterplan anticipated loss of value on their property? should provide a clear focus in relation to green infrastructure provision and where possible such provisions should be RUGBY CLUB relocation incorporated into new development;  Welcome the commitment in the development objectives to  Concerns that the Rugby Club facilities would be lost. protect and enhance the watercourses and any sensitive habitats on the site to increase biodiversity. Development should avoid adverse biodiversity impacts and mitigate only Summary of main points raised by statutory consultees when this is not possible. Development proposals should seek Highways England opportunities to create and/or enhance biological networks, linkages and corridors that permeate through the site.  Masterplan should enable the site to make the best of any opportunities to facilitate and support the use of sustainable

The Wildlife Trust  Creation of safe routes to local schools to encourage active travel.  Concerned that no mention was made in consultation material of enhancement of locally characteristic semi- Met Office natural habitats and/or native species populations – particularly Habitats & Species of Principal Importance in No comments to make. England, nor the retention of extant wildlife habitat features such as hedgerows and trees; Sport England  Should be specific mention of enhancing biodiversity and of

the need for an ecological assessment, preferably as part of  Relocation of rugby club must provide a like for like this masterplan; replacement of the facilities that will be lost as a result of the  Green corridor along watercourse (northern boundary) needs development; to be wide enough to operate if it is to function as part of an  Replacement facilities must conform to RFU and/or Sport effective ecological network. Also needs to be appropriately England specifications for changing rooms, floodlights, designed and managed to function effectively for multiple clubhouse design, car parking and natural turf pitches; uses/service including the provision of pedestrian access;  If an artificial grass pitch is proposed for the new site, this  No mapped indication or description of how the development must conform to World Rugby Regulation 22 standards and site links to extant surrounding ecological networks, nor how achieve compliance with the specifications outlined in RFU masterplan guidance might be expected to enhance, repair, guidance note 7; restore or create such networks;  Sport England will not accept qualitative improvements to an  Masterplan should identify a minimum hectarage for existing playing field to mitigate the loss of this site. A provision of open space across the site to guard against any genuine creation of new playing field must be provided; reduction, simplification or loss of any open spaces at  Replacement rugby ground and ancillary facilities must be planning application stage. implemented and ready for use prior to development

commencing on the north Blackburn site to ensure continuity Blackburn with Darwen Public Health Team of use;  Not clear who will be responsible for replacing the rugby  Highlighted importance of providing outdoor space for play ground. Masterplan should make clear where the responsibility and ensuring the potential for physical activity is maximised; lies with replacing the rugby ground (rugby club, Council or  Ensure development is easily accessible by foot and bicycle applicant?) and has easy access to public transport;  Traffic calming measures integrated within development;

 Where viable, consider the use of permeable paving and Health and Safety Executive cycleways, increased landscape and a reduction in the use of hardstanding as a means to reduce surface water run-off No comments to make. rates;  Encourage use of SuDs; Historic England  Highlight the presence of existing UU assets within the site and the formal easement in place running from the pumping No comments to make. station adjacent to Lammack Road and along Yew Tree Drive;  Incorporate water efficiency measures into design. Canal & River Trust National Grid

No comments to make. No comments to make.

Blackburn with Darwen Clinical Commissioning Group 5. CONCLUSIONS (CCG) 5.1 The Council would like to thank all residents and other  Strong support for the development; stakeholders who engaged in the consultation process for  Acknowledge that the development results in a significant their contributions. The Council has reviewed all of the increase in the population in the area and therefore, demand consultation feedback and has tried as much as possible upon the GP surgeries which serve it; to take comments into account in the preparation of the  Request as part of the planning for this area, the Council final version masterplan. It has not been possible to enters into discussions with the CCG as a priority to find a shape the masterplan to meet every concern or request. solution which will improve the accommodation for GPs and 5.2 As noted in this report and in the masterplan there will be the services they can offer to its residents. opportunities for further community consultation and United Utilities input into the development of detailed scheme proposals at the planning application stage.  Strongly encourage preparation of a site wide infrastructure 5.3 This report will be published on the Council’s website strategy in advance of any planning application submission; alongside the adopted masterplan. Updates on the  Applicants will be expected to demonstrate that current delivery of the masterplan proposals will also be published natural discharge solution from the site is at least mimicked; on the Council’s website; these can be viewed here.

APPENDIX 1: Consultation material

APPENDIX 2: Consultation leaflet

APPENDIX 3: Boundary of draft masterplan and area of resident leaflet drop

APPENDIX 4: Newsletter

Impact on amenity/health APPENDIX 5: Highways/access/connectivity Loss of views/compensation & well-being Residents’ consultation responses Principle of developing site Impact on wildlife Surface water drainage

Rugby club Infrastructure Green infrastructure/footpaths

Respondent Q1: What are your views on the masterplan framework so far?

Charlie Ellis The plan talks of ‘good connections to the surrounding countryside’. However the entrance onto Whinney Lane will lead to large volumes of traffic exiting onto a narrow and dangerous country lane which is very narrow, has no footpaths and is used by pedestrians and school children. Mrs Wendy This plan must not go ahead. Outrageous to build on Green Belt, government made a big mistake to say you could. Marsh Roy Too much concentrated on a semi-rural area. Is it all really necessary? Photographs submitted with response Braithwaite Unknown I’m sorry you are planning to build on the few green fields left in Lammack. Unknown Awful plan – could not understand it. Sufiya Rasull We are interested in the high end properties as there is a shortage in Blackburn. John The masterplan doesn’t suit the area or benefit the area. Brooksbank Charlotte Needs more consideration in regards to access to ‘public’ green space for other residents. If BRUFC moves (possibly to Witton) cluster of sports facilities on opposite side of town. Jackson Unknown With so little firm details i.e. roads, access, rugby club agreement to sale, types of houses planned and potential house purchasers – difficult to have firm views. Joanna Taylor Too many houses. Too many exits and entrances onto Ramsgreave Drive: causing chaos on what is the main thoroughfare from M6/Preston and M65. Sue & David It is better than I thought it might be but there do not seem to be safeguards to ensure developers work responsibly in terms of environmental issues etc. Fisher Unknown There will be far too much traffic and Whinney Lane will become even more dangerous. Unknown Ill conceived – makes no allowance for increased traffic and existing bottle necks, no consideration given to existing home owners. Hugh & Claire Disappointed that rural Blackburn is being taken away when there are sites within Blackburn which are derelict. Jones Mary Akou I am not in agreement as it takes a beautiful piece of Blackburn away and there is little of it left. Use brown land, use imagination. Emma James Concerned that there has not been adequate joint planning with Ribble Valley Council, given that this development is happening on the border. Unknown Like every resident who currently overlooks the proposed site I strongly object to the proposed development. You have not considered the feelings of the local people. We have been compared to the unfortunate people near the Gib Lane development. That is not a fair comparison as although they too will lose their open views, they are not backing onto Green Belt land and always ran the risk that their fields would be built on. Mr & Mrs Disgusting. Ewans Joyce Are the council planners really bothered what the local residents think about the so called masterplan. The tax payers and back handers are allowing them to ‘feather their own nests’. The Whittaker lovely view at the back of the cottages, the birds, wildlife and squirrels which come into my garden will vanish through greed. More cars, more congestion, more unhealthy car fumes. Privacy taken away and easier access for people to break in through the back. Are you trying to destroy these cottages? I don’t know about increasing council tax – if building goes ahead we should get a reduction!

The council’s first masterplan should be to clean up the town. The Bastwell and Shear Brow areas are filthy and rubbish is thrown everywhere. If the town is supposed to be under regeneration why don’t you build on the scruffy areas? Who on earth would wish to buy a quality house (now that is a joke) in Blackburn – the owners across the road have difficulty in selling their large houses. Mr & Mrs Prior There has not been any prior consultation with residents to enable us to influence the production of this masterplan. I, and other residents, have concerns that staff could not answer at the meeting. As residents I believe that by this stage of the process we deserve better consideration and some specific, definitive answers to issues that will affect our lives, are not of our choosing and are already affecting our well-being. The proposals are drawn up by planners who don’t live in the area and don’t adequately address the needs and concerns of the residents as against the appeal to prospective new residents. Diane Holden The plan seems to be taking shape. David & Judith The masterplan has totally ignored the effects on current local residents – destroying the rural aspects of Whinney Lane, Barker Lane and the area currently occupied by Blackburn Rugby Club. Aston Ashab Patel In simple one word ill thought out. Planning to build so many houses in such a small space will have a drastic effect on environment and there are no details plans on highways, education, and health to accommodate for the needs of residents of this township you’re proposing. 23

Asma Master I think it's a brilliant idea. More houses are needed with growing families, where they can benefit greenery, and a modern good size home. Dawood Very sceptical on the impact this will have on the surrounding area particularly highways and natural landscape. Ibrahim David Lee I do not believe this development should go ahead for the reasons I submitted prior to this issued going to the Government inspector i.e. noise, flooding, carbon footprint and removal of natural habitats for birds and wildlife. Dr John I think the framework is poorly thought through in terms of the wider impact it has. I am concerned it has set a precedent for ignoring the very reason that greenbelt land exists. Furthermore I Metcalfe feel that it ignores residents' health and wellbeing and is inconsistent will both local and national government agendas for increasing physical activity and wellbeing. Dissemination of information was poor regarding the process from the start. The first I was informed was on 17th March 2016 - by then significant advances had already taken place. Susan Kay My views of the Masterplan framework so far are that it does not consider carefully enough the impact on the people who live in or enjoy the existing northern border of Blackburn for its (now precious) rural feel. I have concerns about the increase in traffic and movement of people in the area also that have not yet been fully considered yet. Mr Livesey Still not convinced of the need to use so much green space when there is a lot of brownfield land yet to be used. John & Marilyn Did not address any specific points of concern. Questions raised only answered by very global responses/overviews i.e. access roads/routes down to Highways Dept., drainage - Developer/ Stansfield United Utilities. Lyndsay The masterplan seems clear and easy to follow. Vause Unknown This is Green Belt land and should not be built on. Mr & Mrs We believe the whole idea of building on Green Belt land to be totally unacceptable and a disaster for the local environment. Ralph Unknown This proposed development is too large altogether. It has a feel of being added on rather than incorporated into the existing locality. Unknown I am adamant that the proposed new junction into Whinney lane will result in a very dangerous environment for myself, children and grandchildren who often need to walk or cycle to go about our daily needs Mr Gulam I am shocked that some of the last green areas in Blackburn are about to be built on, particularly when there is currently no need for any housing. Blackburn is not a developing town, We have Akoo no major industry and housing is not an issue. It is difficult enough selling all the current housing. This means that there will be more empty houses around Blackburn. Why has Blackburn to do this? Has the Gov. forced this policy on Blackburn?? Ian Black Blackburn does not need any more houses. There are many houses which would create a massive impact on traffic on Whinney Lane and the dual carriageway. Traffic has already increased on Whinney lane as it is a rat run for BAE systems. There is no speed restriction for part of Whinney Lane which needs to be addressed. Unknown I see this as a positive move towards meeting the growing demand for quality homes in good locations. John Vause I am concerned about the extra traffic this will bring to Whinney Lane and Mellor. Mr W Oakes Too many properties planned for area. No school provision. Unknown I think the plans are ridiculous. The consequences that the building of this estate will have are many. Peter If the aim of the masterplan is to turn greenfield/greenbelt land into building sites then it will be successful. Matthewman Rebekah If I did not live on Ramsgreave Drive and have to live around a construction site for however many years this will take I would say the plans look promising. However as a resident I am Taylor extremely worried about my quality of life during this time. Unknown The housing needs to be affordable. The house should be sympathetic with local surroundings and is far too large an area to be developed. The brownfield sites should be developed before building on greenbelt land. Once it has been built on there will be no going back. Eventually the town will end up being a large urban sprawl with no greenfield space. Nigel Perplus The land proposed to be used for the development is designated Green Belt on your own information gateway - http://cp.mcafee.com/d/5fHCMUi41AqdEIe8K8IzD4PtPqqarPyr3yq9J6ZTSnDC6m3qqarPyr3yqpJ55wsCMUOMqejrJoCdywIvI8iwh1h0_r5i3soshGpVIGr87XoGgrz3ydjfdBjpEV8c3Lh7fZvC1Pz9EVooW ZOWqq8XzhOOUMeppWy8VqWqJQkul3PWApmU6CQjrxK_8K6zBV55BeXNKVI06gfSNkwT678upmfS700uraUHGT0Yf9aWIsyeqfQJYq7quurx8zV_bv5oZKwacqveIadGGODRGYSldKfc8CMS1EwzWNVo QgjGq83he86y1nqj-aN-Md43JoCy06lzcCq81A_r5i3so6y13PfDRml-4Ph1ik_dK9C-0kX8kop – As this land is next to Ribble Valley’s own Green Belt, any re-classification will have a detrimental impact on that area inside the Ribble Valley. I cannot see any information that consults RVBC on this.

Respondent Q2: Do you agree with the main issues that we have considered in developing the draft masterplan? Are there any others that should be taken into account?

Charlie Ellis The site is bounded by Green Belt land in the Ribble Valley area and this site will undoubtedly impact on the wildlife as well as on the general nature and amenity of this area. Mrs Wendy Must protect Green Belt. Not too late to stop this. Marsh Roy Braithwaite The road access and number of cars added is questionable. No concession to air quality or green policy. Photographs submitted with response Unknown Don’t agree. Sufiya Rasull Yes we agree. John Brooksbank No, the views that are lost by house owners have not been taken into consideration. Charlotte Drainage and water table disruption doesn’t seem as thought out. Jackson Nigel & Audrey Access to Whinney Lane for vehicles will create a large amount of traffic coming through Mellor and Mellor Lane, this will cause traffic problems (Mellor will be used as a rat run). Please Kelleher reconsider and remove this entrance. Unknown Why is no qualified council representative available to present the plan and answer questions raised? Unknown Local wildlife. Hugh & Claire Concerns regarding traffic, schooling, health provision, public transport. Jones Sharon Phillips Raising concerns regarding provision of healthcare in this area. Works at Brownhill Surgery located on Whalley New Road. The practice is working at capacity and we have new patients joining every week who are already dissatisfied with the care they are receiving from other practices within Blackburn and also new patients moving into the area. There is a new development of 80 units on Parsonage Road, which we knew nothing about and I believe that the proposed development in Blackburn North is up to 450 units.

Although some of these people may already have a local GP and be moving within the area there is potential for at least 1,500 people wanting to register with local GP services. Roe Lee Surgery based on Whalley New Rd also know nothing about this new development (incidentally I think that the location of Roe Lee Surgery is incorrectly marked on your map – unless that is actually meant to be a new GP surgery).

Has anyone consulted with the developers regarding a new build of a Health Centre in this area? I am sure you will say that the CCG is aware of the development and has been involved in discussions at the planning stage but I would like to know who exactly has been consulted because it certainly hasn’t been any of the GPs/staff working in the two nearest practices. Mary Akou I think the flooding and drainage have not been addressed. Emma James I did not see any mention of existing wildlife e.g. breeding sites for curlew and lapwing and feeding ground for barn owls – and what support might be given for these. Unknown No. you have not shown that you have considered the feelings of local residents and what provisions will be in place to appease or compensate them. Some people do not mind living in estates, or on main roads, but everyone in this neighbourhood bought their homes because of the protected Green Belt land which gives not only a view but a feeling of openness. We did not choose our houses because they are by a dual carriageway; that was a compromise to get the view and to be on the very edge of the town. We paid a high premium to buy these houses in this area. The same houses in another part of Blackburn would have been much cheaper.

You have shown no consideration for the loss in value of the neighbouring homes. In fact, you have denied this, stating that our houses will rise in value by between £20,000 and £30,000 just because of these proposals. They used to be some of the most desirable houses in Blackburn and rarely came up for sale. How this has changed. Mr & Mrs Ewans We do not agree with anything. You are ruining our countryside. Mr & Mrs Prior The needs of the existing residents need to be put to the fore. A section entitled ‘Benefits to existing resident’ and detailing the concerns of residents and the specific proposals to ensure we will also benefit would both highlight our issues and begin to address them. Your main issues are quite different to my main issues – but I live here. How close do you propose buildings will be to my house? Will I also access the views to the countryside? I do at the moment – so where is the benefit to me as a resident in your future plans? Issues caused by change and increased population – such as security, pollution, change to existing biodiversity, traffic – are not adequately addressed. Diane Holden The effect on existing properties which are already alongside 4 lanes of fast traffic and a busy junction on the residents. The speed of the traffic needs to be addressed on the dual carriageway. David & Judith No – it has yet to be demonstrated that there is any needs for a development of this scale – huge in comparison to the needs of the borough. There is nothing in the plan that will limit the Aston nature of the housing – this is just a “guess”. Ashab Patel You haven’t really consider any of the big issues, you have just listed a couple just my mention surface water drainage that not classed as considering. There are no plans. By concreting and creating an urban jungle on GREEN BELT and mere mentioning of surface water is not called consideration. Homes will flood with these proposals because water will have nowhere to go.

There is no consideration of current home owner and there quality of life people have spent all the money to buy this house and the current open views and surrounding green space will be gone forever.

There is no consideration for the traffic volume by building 500 executive homes, each house will have 2 cars that 1000 car assuming only half those car will go for work in morning, that’s 250 extra car on a single road hence grid locks.

Building an additional 500 homes would increase population, how many of these homes would have children? Even if you say one child per home, that’s 500 additional children in the local catchment area to school. There has been no consideration for their schooling needs in the plan, and this number of 500 children is likely to be the minimum number. I’ve moved from London and it took me nearly three years to find a dentist who would register a NHS patient and my sister in law who moved from Leicester id still not registered. What will happen to all the new residents... where are they going to be registered? The local community centres and places of worship will not be able to cope. St James centre is now closed and GP never have

appointments available. Blackburn hospital can’t cope with recent pressures or it is operating at the limit of its capacity. Dawood Ibrahim No, you have not considered the impact this will have on Whinney Lane and Lammack Road traffic. Is there highway changes required there? Very short term thinking by the council again! Dr John Metcalfe No consideration appears to have been given regarding setting a precedent for building on greenbelt land. Little concern appears to have been given for residents' health and wellbeing as a direct result of losing the well documented biophilic benefits of green areas. And little appears to have been given to the vast array of wildlife (including barn owls, bees etc.) whose habitat will be lost. Susan Kay I believe that more attention needs to be paid to how local residents and those moving onto the plot will manage the 50mph speed limit bypass (A6119). In particular how will pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders cross the bypass given that there are no pelican crossings along the affected stretch. I am also concerned that there has not been enough consideration given to the impact on local wildlife that use the existing land. We have barn owls in the area who hunt in these fields and pheasants are regularly seen in the fields also. Mr Livesey I would hope that the current view of the countryside we now enjoy would be taken into consideration. John & Marilyn At this stage No. No one at the meeting was able to give any firm proposals as to number/ density of properties. Access routes as yet unknown therefore how can we assess the impact of Stansfield increased volume of traffic on Whinney Lane generated by X number of properties. Lyndsay Vause An entrance onto Whinney Lane from the new estate is planned, which will substantially increase traffic on this road. This road is a country lane which, once it enters Ribble Valley heading towards Mellor village, becomes unlit, narrow, with no path. This lane is used regularly by walkers, cyclists, horse riders, children catching the school bus at the top of the hill, plus locals going to the village. Half way up the hill is a very narrow, tight, blind bend, which is very hazardous with current traffic/ pedestrian levels. The use of the lane will considerably increase by all users with the new estate and the hazardous risk rating will therefore substantially increase. This lane attracts traffic speeding down the hill, which is national speed limit, then entering the straight stretch leading to Yew Tree drive they increase their speed, even though this section is 30 miles /hr, which is widely ignored. The straight run to the end is clearly too much of a temptation to drivers to keep their speed legal. This straight section will be where the new entrance is proposed, and will therefore be another hazard. Unknown No. Mr & Mrs Ralph No 1. More consideration should be given to the adverse effect on the neighbouring properties 2. Retention of the dry stone wall along Whinney Lane is essential to retain the character of the area. Unknown Appears to have been no consideration given to the impact of wildlife using the arrear. Curlews and ground nesting lapwings particularly will be displaced. Unknown Don’t agree with the proposed new junction into Whinney Lane. Mr Gulam Akoo Yes, the road situation and capacity in one small area. Ian Black No I don’t think the issues of waste and sewage have been addressed given the old Victorian system we have which cannot cope with any more. Unknown Yes I agree with the main issues considered. John Vause Blackburn’s core strategy was adopted in 2011. Point 8.23 Fig 13 shows that the net market housing demand for terraces is zero, so why is the top section of the proposal for terrace housing? Mr W Oakes No provision for extra schools. Unknown The proposed junction onto Whinney Lane seriously needs to be taken into consideration. Not only will this ruin the tranquil and rural nature of Whinney Lane (no doubt one of the main reasons why many decided to reside here and further in Mellor in the first place), but the consequences it will have on road safety will be detrimental. Whinney Lane simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic this estate will create. As a resident of Whinney Lane, I have witnessed first-hand the dangers associated with this lane.

Consideration needs to be given to the existing hazards: • the dangerous bend • proximity of houses to the narrow road, which already causes problems when 2 oncoming vehicles are trying to pass. This is already a huge problem with drivers having to risk damaging their cars by moving so close to walls and other cars to avoid damaging/colliding with the oncoming traffic. Not to mention the trucks and tractors that regularly uses the route!!! • There are already numerous, very large potholes that seem to be ignored by the council. • Whinney Lane is already dangerous particularly in bad weather conditions and is in no fit state to accommodate further traffic. • The increase in traffic will almost certainly make it difficult for many of us residents to enter and exit our driveways.

We have paid high prices specifically to live in a quiet, rural area with low traffic, not many people and beautiful views. These plans threaten all of these things! To put it simply, Whinney Lane is in not fit state to accommodate further traffic. There are alternative routes which can be considered, that do not jeopardise the peace Whinney Lane and Mellor so widely enjoy. Peter Little has been said about developing existing sites in the town with the more affordable type of housing that the town requires. Matthewman Rebekah Taylor Main issues not considered: - Loss of value in the homes of Ramsgreave Drive residents. Houses on this drive were priced partly according to the view out the back. - Compensation to residents must be considered. - Have you thought about offering a discounted home on a part exchange basis to those already living on Ramsgreave Drive? Something to soften the blow? Nigel Perplus Referring to Blackburn’s own Core Strategy objectives: a. Figure 7 on page 34, there is reference made to ‘Locations for new housing’ (Point CS 5). I do not see evidence of item E being adopted. The proposal is clearly outside of your Urban Boundary Policy which is identified on the map referenced in item 1. Above. b. Point8.7 says that executive homes should not be built in Green Belt, or at worst towards the end of the core strategy. c. Point 8.23 Fig 13 states that the ‘net market housing demand’ for terraced houses is zero. Trusting this is correct, why is the top section of the proposal for terraced houses. d. Point 10.20 states that any proposals should have a minimal environmental impact. This proposal will have a maximum impact on both the Green Belt in Blackburn and the adjoining RVBC by means of detrimental impact on the environment. e. Point 10.22 states ‘some development will never be acceptable, regardless of the economic or social benefits it offers. Examples of unacceptable impacts would relate to flood risk, landscape impact, creation of car journeys and so on’ For this development proposal, nearly all journeys will have to be by car, in particular the school run, going to the shops and commuting to work due to the lack of public transport servicing this area.

Respondent Q3: Do you feel issues such as drainage and highways have been addressed sufficiently? If not, why not?

Charlie Ellis Highways issues have not been fully considered. Traffic leaving the site onto Whinney Lane will lead to a large increase of vehicular traffic on Whinney Lane and will increase traffic travelling through the adjoining rural village of Mellor when they use it as a short cut to the A59. Mrs Wendy As this land does not drain to a foul sewer, how are you dealing with the sewerage? Marsh Mrs Eccleston I feel that access is a major issue on Ramsgreave Drive and Yew Tree Drive, and particularly onto Lammack Road. Roy Braithwaite No. the exit to a narrow (Whinney Lane) and a dual carriageway need serious reconsideration. Drainage and flooding on land at foot of land between Whinney and Barker Lane is a serious issue. Photographs submitted with response Unknown Highways will be too busy. Geoff Hudson Concerned about the amount of run-off water going under Lammack Road. At the moment after heavy rainfall unable to cope. Floods road. Sufiya Rasull Yes. John Brooksbank Although draft proposals are in place the actual affect will not be seen until a development is in place. I actually don’t care about the proposals as I am losing far more. Charlotte Consideration of dual carriageway access to site needs to be re-thought due to number of homes suggested (night drivers a lot faster than 50). Jackson Nigel & Audrey Probably not. It is very wet down by the stream. Kelleher Unknown How do we know if they are or not? A responsible person should be present to answer and justify these propositions. Joanna Taylor Absolutely not. It would seem that no thought has been given to traffic and the increase on Ramsgreave Drive and Pleckgate Road which is the main road through the town for the emergency services. Sue & David Not enough detail. High risk of RTAs particularly on Whinney Lane. Potential for large traffic jams along dual carriageway. Fisher Unknown No, because present drainage is not sufficient. Unknown No, emphasis seems to be on the north side of the site, the Valley, has two slopes and water runs both ways. Hugh & Claire No. Great concern about access onto Barker Lane, Whinney lane - dual carriageway overwhelming the present highways and causing knock on effect on Mellor. Jones Diane Hayes Concerned about the impact this will have on the traffic flow coming up Whinney Lane to gain access to Mellor village but more importantly the A59 via Abbott Brow and Primrose Lane/Showley Fold. The volume of cars already coming up this narrow lane together with the speed they go at makes this a ‘rat run’ and dangerous to residents, dog walkers and cyclists. It is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident. Mary Akou No – these areas get flooded all the time and the natural drainage system of the rugby pitch is needed. Bullion is soaked all the time. Emma James No – I am not convinced that the management of water has been adequately dealt with. The bottom of Barker Lane and Whinney lane already flood – even with the existing marshy ground to absorb water. I cannot see how increased hard surfacing can do anything but make this worse. Unknown No. you have shown that there is a bus route with bus stops on Yew Tree Drive. This is inaccurate. There have been no busses for many years, and the bus stops are just advertising boards and plans are in place to have them removed. You have not explained how so many cars will access the dual carriageway. Will there be traffic lights at each entrance to allow cars to turn left and right? There are regularly car crashes at the junctions of Yew Tree Drive and Whinney Lane and even at the traffic lights at the junction with Lammack Road. There have been at least 3 accidents in the last 2 months. Speed cameras were installed to reduce the number of accidents but the confusion of junctions on a dual carriageway will only lead to more accidents. Nigel Kelleher Would like to raise an issue with which I am concerned regarding the proposed entrance for vehicles on Whinney Lane to/from the development which would see an increase in the volume of traffic coming through Mellor that was travelling, for example, to BAE, M6 or Preston. Could you please reconsider this entrance position, as it would be much better to channel the traffic onto the main ring road only (Yew Tree Drive). The concern is that Mellor village would be used as a rat run, and repositioning would at least reduce the numbers coming directly onto Whinney Lane. Please also note that this same issue would also apply to any vehicle entrances on Barker Lane, which fortunately at present you do not have in the plans. Chris Heaton Access and egress from the developments should work well given the chosen positions however it is to be hoped that the speed limit is cut from the current 50mph and opportunities for pedestrians to cross safely from one side of Ramsgreave Drive are given thought. Rebecca The shaded area is bounded by the narrow country lane of Whinney Lane, and the exit is close to the brow of a hill on Yew Tree Drive where cars appear whilst travelling at a good speed. Hargreaves- Exit in the morning for a considerable amount of traffic could well be difficult, as would any similar possible exit from Barker Lane further into your planned area. In fact, when I was a Gillibrand child, that particular junction was known to be a traffic accident blackspot.

The land of your shaded area in between Whinney Lane and Barker Lane does descend quite sharply; in consequence, I wonder if drainage could become a problem – especially as the entire development would be sited in the basin at the bottom of the Mellor/Ramsgreave much higher areas. Mr & Mrs Ewans Nothing at all has been addressed sufficiently. Mr & Mrs Prior Proposed systems are unlikely to prevent flooding. The natural flow of water is unlikely to be sufficiently controlled. Springs are not marked on your map and the natural flow of water will emerge somewhere, flooding being exacerbated by hard surfaces preventing natural drainage. Flooding is a regular issue behind the Lammack Road/Yew Tree Drive cottages where we live. It is beyond belief that your proposal meeting was held before receiving the results of the drainage testing of the ‘site’. The supply of clean water and sewerage for an increased population is also an issue, sewage pipes having fractured and been re-laid within the previous 2 years. That access is no longer planned to be from Lammack Road/Barker Lane is at least something of a relief. Diane Holden Although a lake is proposed at the brook adjacent the Rugby training field also becomes a lake with rain. The access road proposed at the junction of Kay Fold/Ramsgreave at the crossroads is already an unmarked hazard. Also the close proximity of the road to the existing properties only serves to increase noise. 27

David & Judith No – Whinney Lane and Barker Lane are both very narrow, totally unsuited to the volume of traffic likely to be generated by a development of large houses, likely with multiple vehicles. Aston Barker Lane is also affected by flooding in heavy rain, more housing will only make matters worse. Ashab Patel As mentioned above, how is the area going to cope with the additional cars, population and movement in the area? The roads are not getting any wider. As it is, Yew Tree Drive has plenty of pot holes and adding additional traffic can’t help. I need to cross Yew Tree Drive to get my child to school and it’s scary enough with the level of cars…increasing the cars on the road would make it extremely difficult to walk to school. With the homes being executive homes with several bedrooms, it’s more than likely to have at least 2 cars per household, that’s 1000 more cars in the local area. How is a single road going to cope with that many cars? The current population of Blackburn is 150,000 and by just one development you will be increasing the population by 10%. Dawood Ibrahim Flood plain issues and impact this will have on other areas. Maureen Pallister The land is very wet and although drainage issues are being addressed, the wet climate this winter has made us all too aware of the water table and subsequent drainage issues. Dr John Metcalfe No. The answers given at the consultation on 23rd March regarding drainage and proposed highway alterations were vague, nebulous and ambiguous. Susan Kay I cannot comment on drainage per se but I know that some local residents have expressed concerns about the watercourse that runs through the proposed site. I have also seen myself that much of the land is in standing water when we get heavy rainfall as we have had this winter - how will these issues be managed? Can the existing drains cope with the excess surface water that will need to be piped away? How old are the drains and how likely is it that they will need to be repaired?

I have serious concerns about the highways. As a resident living on Barker Lane I know that neither this lane nor Whinney Lane can cope with any further increase in traffic. I do not think it can be denied that the housing development will impact upon traffic levels if 450 households with an average of one or more cars are introduced to the area. I express this concern because these are country lanes and do not fully accommodate two car widths, hence often causing bottlenecks. In addition - will Barker Lane be gritted? Ice and snow cause problems every year without fail for those using it. Will there be any new parking restrictions enforced on Barker or Whinney Lane?

Will there be any changes to bus routes and bus stops? Mr Livesey The field to the rear of our bungalow is permanently wet so I suspect flooding will occur if this natural soakaway is built on. John & Marilyn Drainage: Waste water generated by the additional properties on the development site - where is this to be processed and can it be adequately coped with? Proposed site in general Stansfield marshland with areas of standing water in fields during December, January and February. Will the proposed "pond" be sufficient to cope with the amount of ground water run-off in periods of heavy rain? This may increase the risk of flooding at junction of Lammack Road and Barker Lane.

Highways: Again, insufficient detail. We would strongly recommend that the only exit/entry for traffic be from Yew Tree Drive, leaving any access from Whinney Lane to be pedestrian only. Being a narrow lane, with already heavy traffic at peak periods, it would not lend itself to a further significant increase in traffic. Our property and two others at rear already have problems exiting from a private lane to join Whinney Lane which would be made more dangerous by any increased volume of traffic. With reference to the recent addition of street lighting, all residents feel we would have been better served by the introduction of a speed camera. Lyndsay Vause Has increased water flow to the stream running behind the planned estate been reviewed? This stream runs under Whinney Lane and on through private land, and increase in flow will be detrimental, possibly overflowing onto Whinney Lane at times of high water fall and flooding surrounding fields and houses.

Re Highways, see comment in answer to question 2 re increased pedestrian/ vehicle traffic on Whinney Lane, which is already a dangerous road heading towards Mellor. Unknown No. Mr & Mrs Ralph Not at all 1. These fields have a very high water table anyway and are subject to flooding even after short periods of rain. 2. The question of septic tanks draining onto the Whinney Lane field still has not been addressed. 3. Whinney Lane is far too narrow to handle the volume of traffic likely to flow from these estates. Unknown No. Water retention on area 'The Whinney' will be lost leading to increased run off onto bottom of Lammack Road/ Barker Lane boundary. This area was badly flooded on Boxing day 2015. Also there will be too many access points from the dual carriage way onto the site. This will create traffic delay and build up on what is supposed to be a major trunk road. There is concern that vehicles will use the 'Access only' slip road to bypass delays. There does not appear to be any provision for controlled pedestrian crossing of the dual carriageway. Parking restrictions around Lammack school will need to be increased; it is already unacceptably congested and chaotic at either end of the school day. Mr Gulam Akoo No there has been no definite plan/solution about how to stop all the flooding from the fields above. Ian Black See above. Whinney lane is not suitable for access. Unknown Yes. John Vause Point 10.22: car journeys should not have an unacceptable impact. For this proposal, all journeys will have to be by car, e.g. school runs, commuting, shopping, due to lack of public transport. This will increase pedestrian danger, having to cross 4 lanes of busy traffic on Yew Tree, and also increase pedestrian/ general traffic up Whinney Lane to Mellor, which is already a dangerous road to walk up, due to lack of pavement, lighting, narrowness and blind bend (with a crossing public footpath at the blind bend!). Whinney lane is also part of the Weavers Wheel plan for cyclists. Has this been taken into consideration when planning a road junction onto Whinney Lane? This contradicts plans to promote cycling, and the increase in traffic will put cyclists in danger, particularly around the narrow blind bend. Mr W Oakes No. As a Whinney Lane resident the increased traffic from the developments will be too much for the lane, with increased pressure on the junction of Whinney Lane and Yew Tree Drive. Peter Drainage of the site needs further investigation since officials were unaware of severe flooding on Barker Lane/Lammack Rd. over Christmas. The new development will result in more Matthewman rapid water run off with which the existing watercourses will be unable to cope. A least it will require more thought and a new larger capacity culvert under this road. I fail to understand why you intend to have seven junctions within one mile on a main dual carriageway which is used by approaching 1000 vehicles at busy times. This volume will increase as a result of the development of the Samlesbury site which was one of the original reasons given for development in this area. Unknown The drainage from the fields needs to be sorted to prevent the flooding problems which happened on Boxing Day this year. The drain under the road between Lammack Road and Barker Lane needs to be improved. There will be 7 junctions within a mile from the A6119. This is far too many. The straggled junction on to the A6119 from Whinney Land is very dangerous. There are often accidents here and at the junction with Lammack Road. These junctions need to be made much safer.

Nigel Perplus Several times during the heavy rains of last winter, rain water has pooled in the dip at the bottom of Whinney Lane. The fact that Whinney Lane is heavily potholed is witness to the volume of water that flows down it. I am concerned that, with the increase in hard surfaces and the loss of naturally absorbent grassland that will result from the building of so many houses, Whinney Lane and the houses alongside it will flood. I see that the Masterplan has taken into account flooding on Barker Lane/Lammack Road but has no plans relating to water run-off towards Whinney Lane.

Respondent Q4: What are your views on the proposals for movements across the site?

Charlie Ellis The ‘enhanced and improved footpaths across the site to link to …greenbelt beyond’ will lead to pressure on the Green Belt from the increased usage by the large numbers of people who will live adjacent to it. Mrs Wendy Must not come out onto Yew Tree Drive many accidents, 6 this year 2016. Marsh Roy Braithwaite The green spaces, walkways and green paths are attractive. Who will maintain them? Photographs submitted with response Unknown Congestion. Sufiya Rasull We are very interested in the development plan, we would consider buying a detached property if we could suggest bespoke room layout. John Brooksbank Unknown at present. Unknown With so many people crowding around each of the plans, difficult to judge and assess. Joanna Taylor Problems are obvious given the numbers of houses and possible exits. Sue & David The access to Kay Fold Lodge is a privately owned road and the residents will oppose access to it. Fisher Unknown Its movements on and off the site that are of concern and how they will affect the existing local residents. Hugh & Claire Potential, as plans are not final, for rat runs forming across new estate. Jones Mary Akou It does not make sense. Emma James Very concerned about the exit onto Whinney Lane. This is a narrow lane, with no pavement, a bend with poor visibility that is used as a rural lane throughout the day by dog walkers, hikers, children accessing school bus routes on Mellor Lane and the dual carriageway, runners, cyclists (accessing very popular cycle routes) and horse riders. I am very concerned that the lane will end up being used as a rat run to connect with the A59. Also think that any new residents would appreciate keeping the quiet, rural nature of the lane. Please don’t put an exit onto Whinney Lane. Unknown New estates rarely have enough space for visitors to park. Roads need to be wider to allow for on street parking as well as each house having its own parking spaces. Chris Heaton Concerned about the public footpath which currently runs through land belonging to Higher Waves Cottage. Concerned that it will become a rat run and possible breeding ground for anti- social behaviours not only this but due to the amount of people who will regularly use the footpath increasing due to the houses being built my privacy will significantly be affected as well as increase in the degradation of my land. I would have thought the ideal place to move it to would be to start alongside the vehicular access point behind the Cottage and meandering through the green space being created to link up with the original footpath somewhere to the end of property belonging to Higher Waves Farm. Mr & Mrs Ewans Our views are all negative. Mr & Mrs Prior The proposed site boundaries appear to afford less space between existing and planned development adjacent to our cottage residents than to other residents. In citing a ‘view out to the countryside’ to make the site appear attractive – you might consider we have a view out to the countryside now – but will lose it to new residents. Although we have paid our premium council tax/purchase price for our views – in the cottages we will be apparently worse off. We are clearly not considered here. Our properties are already losing value and will be affected, along with our well-being for a seemingly indefinite unsettled period of blight. To name a cycle path after our heritage ‘Weavers’ – named from the handloom weaving cottages in which we live – but to completely ignore all other aspects of our future and wellbeing is insulting. Diane Holden I agree with the walking and cycling lanes but am worried about vehicular routes and look at the Beardwood estate as an example of possible problems with speed. David & Judith I do believe that the planned use of footpaths and cycleways will help to lessen impact of the development. Aston Ashab Patel There is not enough detail. Creating that many access points on Yew Tree Drive and Ramsgreave Drive would slow traffic down. Susan Kay It would be beneficial for the 'green corridor' to be a multi-use bridleway to allow for residents to pursue healthy active pursuits without having to use the main road. John & Marilyn Too vague - only possible access routes suggested with access off Yew Tree and with further access from Whinney Lane. Was suggested that the number of properties accessed from Stansfield Whinney Lane could be restricted, with the bulk of the estate accessed from the dual carriageway. All efforts must be made not create a "rat run" through the estate onto Whinney Lane. Lyndsay Vause Movement routes look sensible. However, where will the green corridor run too when heading toward Whinney Lane? Will it be a dead end or will a new pedestrian way be made to lead to Whinney lane? If so, this will add to the pedestrian/ vehicle hazard potential on Whinney Lane. Unknown This should not be allowed. Mr & Mrs Ralph 1. There should not be any access onto Whinney Lane as the lane is too narrow and would be used as a short-cut through the estate. 2. Construction traffic should not be permitted to enter or exit from Whinney Lane because of its narrowness and the residents' parked cars. Unknown There appears to be a through road on area The Whinney. This will lead to a 'rat run' being created. Mr Gulam Akoo The current beautiful area giving space and pleasure to 1000's. I cannot even consider this. Ian Black It is not realistic there would be huge congestion. Unknown They seem reasonable and structured towards making the best of the locality. Mr W Oakes Increased traffic will put an added strain on existing road capacity increasing the possibility of accidents and slowing traffic flow. Increasing traffic noise and pollution. Peter The movements across the site seem reasonable. The movements to and from the site present some serious issues. Matthewman Rebekah Taylor Primary street/access point has been identified directly at the back of my home. I would like reassuring that these points will be edged with tall tress to avoid overlooking or potential crime. Unknown Appears to be a road ('Village Lane') connecting Whinney Lane through the site to Yew Tree Drive. This will end up becoming a 'rat run' through the site and needs to be addressed Nigel Perplus With regard to the access for the proposed development leading onto Whinney Lane I have serious concerns for the safety of existing residents and road users. This is a narrow road almost single file in parts and I would suggest already cannot cope with any more traffic unless widened and pavements added? I have a toddler joining Mellor Primary School this year and he will be walking on a daily basis up Whinney Lane with other local children over the coming years. I feel this will be unsafe if the proposed opening onto Whinney Lane goes ahead. Surely a far safer option would be onto Yew Tree Drive? 30

Respondent Q5: Do the proposals offer links to the key areas and facilities used by local residents?

Mrs Wendy All local residents do not want this development. Stop it now. Marsh Roy Braithwaite Primary school provision is inadequate. Cars, cars, cars to school, to shops, to station. Additional bus services required. Photographs submitted with response Unknown No. Sufiya Rasull Yes they do. John Brooksbank No. Charlotte Offer relative access but trains only every hour are unrealistic. Jackson Unknown Too vague. Joanna Taylor No other than increasing traffic on Ramsgreave Drive. Sue & David This is not made clear – children crossing dual carriageway to school for example. A lot of crossing will cause traffic problems. Fisher Hugh & Claire Not really – just increasing pressure on present facilities e.g. schools, GP etc. Jones Mary Akou It is difficult to see 1200 vehicles an hour on dual carriageway 400 more houses what are you thinking. Unknown You are certainly giving them our view and protected green space and taking it away from us. Mr & Mrs Ewans The links are going to destroy our twilight years. Diane Holden No – there are no safe places to cross the dual carriageway e.g. pedestrian crossings. David & Judith Large family homes will be occupied by large families. Looking at the traffic chaos when the local school is opening, I do not believe the school has the capacity to take more pupils. Aston Ashab Patel No, by increasing number of cars would reduce movement there is no plan for fuelling station for that many cars there is going to be increased burden of jobs, increased burden of local shops, schools and healthcare. Asma Master Yes I think so location is ideal where schools, shops, and for me mosque is nearby. Dawood Ibrahim Not really. John & Marilyn No - In our immediate area there are no facilities. Bus services are practically non-existent. It is understood that Pleckgate and Lammack schools will be extended to cope with increase Stansfield demand - will this be sufficient? Lyndsay Vause Yes. Unknown There is no need to try and encroach on Green Belt land. Unknown There is one small local shop. The nearest doctor, post office, cash point is at Brownhill, about a mile away, which only has very limited on-street parking. Mr Gulam Akoo No. Ian Black No there are not enough schools or public transport and potentially an extra 1200 cars in this area would cause mayhem at peak times twice daily. Unknown Yes. Mr W Oakes No. Peter There are few local shopping facilities within what individuals would regard as walking distance. There are few other facilities locally. I feel that there is an over optimistic view as to people Matthewman being prepared to walk and cycle. Unknown What are the proposals for bus services to the area for local residents? At the moment bus services are either poor or non-existent. A bus service to the shops at Brownhill and the railway station is needed. There are 3 bus stops marked on Yew Tree Drive on the map in the information leaflet which are not currently used. Are there plans for these to be brought into use? The nearest doctor’s surgery is at Brownhill. What are the proposals for a surgery in the area? There is currently one small shop in the area. The nearest other shops including a post office are in Brownhill, around a mile away. There is no bus service to Brownhill from this area and the parking is difficult. What are the proposals for shops or a post office in the area? Nigel Perplus I feel the overall size of the proposed development is far too large for the infrastructure in place and would negatively impact the local community for current residents in terms of congested traffic. Most houses have 2 cars on average & to add the proposed amount of houses to the current community would add around 900 cars. Parking for local shops is already hard to come by and I simply cannot see how the current infrastructure would cope without further consideration.

Respondent Q6: Do you have any comments on the proposals for incorporating green infrastructure into the development?

Mrs Wendy Marsh This land as I understand it is white land. Does this proposal change its status? Roy Braithwaite It improves the proposals. Photographs submitted with response Unknown Agree with this, don’t agree with the development. Sufiya Rasull No. John Brooksbank It doesn’t replace my loss. Charlotte Jackson All the green space appears to be clustered. Joanna Taylor What proposals? Sue & David Fisher This seems to mainly concentrate along the public footpath on the Ribble Valley border. I think the original plan to keep (and enhance) existing trees and hedgerows should have been kept. Unknown Some endangered species will be affected. Unknown Similar ideas on the estate around the Pleckgate area look a mess. Ponds look like mud baths and are infested with ducks. A lot of duck poo can be seen around these ponds. Hugh & Claire Jones Usually such areas are not properly maintained by Council and become derelict e.g. Swallowfields duck pond. Mary Akou I am very sceptical. Flooding is a major concern. Emma James Yes – as much green infrastructure as possible should be included. Unknown Who cares! Once you’ve taken the openness and Ribble Valley view away from us why should we be bothered that the new residents get green space? Chris Heaton I believe that green spaces have been thought about and incorporated well within the development. Mr & Mrs Ewans This was Green Belt country and should remain that way. Mr & Mrs Prior I can find no proposed green infrastructure planned for retention or enhancement of the current view from my property or that will ease the view from my property. I have been unable to ascertain whether or not there will be a buffer zone between my existing property and any new development or a remedy planned to ensure that I will feel incorporated into your green infrastructure. Diane Holden Yes, there has to be green spaces included in the development, to ensure the wildlife returns after the disruption. I would expect a plan for maintenance of these areas to be included. David & Judith Aston It would seem the council wishes to provide a “rural location with good views” for the residents of the new development…doing the exact opposite for current local ratepayers. Ashab Patel This is building on greenbelt. How is the river going to cope with the extra water that will run into it? I don’t see any green left after this plan. I have a lovely view from all my windows, that is what we saved our money for and that is the reason for buying our home. This plan has not considered how it will effect our life. Natural light will be reduced for our home and our garden will be in a big shadow and overall by another property - that’s not the reason we bought our home.

Dawood Ibrahim Have you not considered green recycling, water, wind, solar into the development? Asma Master Yes having greenery is important. Dr John Metcalfe I feel the development should not take place as the area is greenbelt land. Susan Kay My view is that incorporating green infrastructure should be made a priority given that the aim is to provide desirable properties with a rural outlook. Is there any way that these provisions will also benefit existing local residents (not just those living on the new development)? John & Marilyn The more green infrastructure the developer can incorporate the better but he must be restricted in the density of properties he is allowed to build to keep as rural, Stansfield open and green aspect as possible. Green spaces need to be sympathetically included keeping mature trees and hedgerows. Stone boundary wall Whinney Lane needs to be retained and new properties need to be constructed away from the boundary wall in a variety of materials/styles, off set from the road at varying angles (not built in line) to avoid a terraced housing effect from road. It would be further enhanced by the incorporation of some stone/period cottage type properties, consistent with some existing buildings. Lyndsay Vause The stream/ brook and side fields which runs along the top end/ green corridor between Whinney Lane and Barker Lane is currently feeding ground for the local barn owl, bats and daily visiting curlews and lapwings. This feeding ground needs to be kept as large/ quite as possible with the needs of the wildlife in mind. As many trees and greenspaces as possible are welcome to help with drainage as well as keeping some of the rural infrastructure of the area. Unknown This should not be allowed to happen. Mr & Mrs Ralph Given the fact that the Council is removing swathes of Green Belt within this area of Blackburn in order to develop these housing estates, maximization of green infrastructure is essential. The installation of ponds, however, could be considered dangerous and/or foolhardy in the light of children living on a family estate. Unknown Existing hedges need to be retained. They may look scruffy but are essential cover for wildlife. Any new planting needs to be done with appropriate tree and shrub species which will thrive in the driving wind and rain. Mr Gulam Akoo I looked and could not see any way this could be done with any impact, with the huge extent of the development Ian Black There are very few places left in Blackburn that are green. It would be a terrible thing to do and an eyesore to change this landscape and the plans do not address the green infrastructure properly. How are they really going to cope with all the flooding which occurs coming off the fields and hills? Unknown No. John Vause The fields between Whinney Lane and Barker lane are currently breeding and feeding grounds for lapwings, curlews and, barn owls, all protected species. A wider boundary of green infrastructure, particularly along the brook, should be designed to encourage a safe haven for wildlife that feeds and lives along the brook. Mr W Oakes Yes. The proposal states that some homes will enjoy rural aspects/views. Since, as long standing residents we already enjoy a rural aspect, we are concerned that it will be sacrificed by these proposals. Peter Matthewman The existing green infrastructure is good and would be destroyed by the new proposals. Much is said about the rural aspects of the new development but little 32

about the loss of the rural outlook for existing residents. I presume surveys of the existing wildlife will be undertaken with suitable protect being enforced? Rebekah Taylor More green infrastructure should be considered between residents homes on Ramsgreave Drive and the proposed new build site. According to the plan it appears that the area at the back of my house will be built on- a divide is needed, tall tress etc. Unknown The hedges in the fields need to remain to support wildlife such as lapwings and curlews.

Respondent Q7: Do you agree with the character areas identified?

Charlie Ellis Whilst the character areas may ‘make the most of the views’ for residents of the new large estate conversely they will ruin the views for residents of Mellor who currently have uninterrupted views of open countryside. Mrs Wendy Marsh Attractive rural location, leave it that way go away. Roy Braithwaite Some reasonable attempt. Photographs submitted with response Unknown No. Sufiya Rasull Yes, I feel having the different characters is better, rather than having mixed housing. John Brooksbank No. Charlotte Jackson ‘Character’ designs may seem like it excludes/prefers particular types of residents rather than the structure of housing. Unknown No. totally out of keeping with rest of the area. Hugh & Claire Jones No as the plans are aspirational and liable to change in the planning and development process. Mary Akou No. Emma James I am not sure what this question means. Unknown It depends who your target market is. You only need to look at larger properties around the borough to see that many lovely gardens are being replaced by no- maintenance tarmac parking areas. There needs to be much more space for parking. 2 spaces per house is not enough. Mr & Mrs Ewans Definitely not. Mr & Mrs Prior Development affecting our property within the row of cottages on Lammack Road is unfortunately undefined unlike the two sites features as fine drawings and it is therefore impossible to comment. Was this the desired impact? This is insensitive considering the concerns we have. Diane Holden I can’t see how the houses proposed for the Rugby Club training field will not impact on the houses in front of them. The plan seems to be to build right up to the boundary. David & Judith Aston In principle, yes. Will depend on the density of final planned housing. It is interesting to note that the least dense, most attractive housing is planned in the area nearest the farm selling the land. He will retain his “rural aspect”. Dr John Metcalfe No. I feel the development should not take place as the area is greenbelt land. Susan Kay No - the development is on Green Belt land therefore I do not agree with the areas identified. John & Marilyn In general yes but would ask that consideration be given to minimising the impact of the housing on Whinney Lane by the incorporation of trees/green areas with Stansfield the building line of properties set back from lane. Lyndsay Vause Yes. Unknown No. Mr & Mrs Ralph It is impossible to comment sensibly until such time as developers have submitted plans since the Council's statements are only, as we understand it, suggestions. Unknown Bullion Moss Fold - a housing development cannot be described as organic. Mr Gulam Akoo The project is too large. Ian Black No. Unknown Yes. John Vause The terrace housing designated for the fold area, which backs onto the brook, is inappropriate. This area should be as less dense as possible, due to the brook and side fields being an important wildlife area (barn owls hunt along the brook), and terrace housing has a zero net demand, and so is not needed. Mr W Oakes No. Rebekah Taylor 'The wave' should be organic in character with a rural feel as they are replacing the landscaping that was once the view of residents of Ramsgreave Drive.

Respondent Q8: Please provide any additional comments that you may have.

Charlie Ellis No development should take place without proper consideration of the effect this development will have on the residents of Ribble Valley and in particular Mellor village. Mrs Wendy Marsh Who is this development for? Who are you catering for? Mrs Eccleston What type of houses will they be – detached, semi-detached, 3 storey? What kind of disruption will occur to traffic and other road users during the building process? Roy Braithwaite Too much seems to be already decided. I am surprised how agricultural farm land which is just in Blackburn East of Whinney lane is allocated. PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED WITH RESPONSE Unknown I don’t want to lose my view. I believe there are too many houses on the plan. Geoff Hudson Will access be available to the rear of existing cottages on Lammack Road (presently a field)? Sufiya Rasull I would like you to keep us informed. We would like to buy a high end property if we could pick location that would be great in a cul de sac. John Brooksbank The fact that my house value may be affected and part of the house’s best part (the view) has not been though about or considered. Nigel & Audrey Please also ensure that Mellor Parish Council and RVBC are informed about traffic entrances and that residents in Mellor have voiced their concerns. All houses on Kelleher Mellor Lane/Whinney Lane etc. should have been informed of this event. Alan J Holden Are you able to advise the intended/proposed number and type of dwellings in the ‘Bullion Moss Fold’ and ‘Whinney’ sections of the development? Unknown Large swathes of Blackburn centre require development – Griffin, Bank Top, Infirmary St area and more. This is where people want to live – in the town. Build affordable housing there before spoiling the countryside. Hugh & Claire Jones Concern that increasing amounts of greenfield sites are being used up as a loss for future generations. Mary Akou Please use brown land. Get people with vision and imagination to utilise areas in and around Blackburn. We have little nice areas left. Emma James Would like to know if Council could do anything to keep the rugby club open. Valuable sporting facility, much used by all age groups. Could the Council incorporate this into its health and fitness programme? A pity to be spending millions on excellent new sporting facilities and at the same time be losing existing facilities. Peter & Jean Tracy Very disappointed we have been given 5 days’ notice of these consultation meetings as we go on holiday tomorrow. We would have thought that such an important matter would have given us a little more notice!

The report from the independent enquiry said that no decision regarding the Rugby Club would be considered until suitable accommodation had been found within the borough – has this been found and agreed?

Where are the access roads proposed to be? Barker Lane into Lammack Road is a death slide during the winter months. Parking on either side of the road is becoming a hazard.

Why has Bullion Moss Farm been ‘cordoned off’ I hope this is nothing to do with the owner being a former planning officer with a neighbouring district and the individual who is most to benefit from this ill-conceived plan.

How does this plan reconcile itself with the plan to build on the Old Blacks – behind the Hare and Hounds?

More importantly do we really need this extra development? They are not making any more land and you appear to be making a ‘doughnut’ effect around Blackburn. Once this land has been developed there is no going back, the Green Belt is lost forever. Rebecca Hargreaves- I wonder if the existing developments of large individually designed properties, cottages and farms would feel justified in placing an objection; their views, country Gillibrand peace and quiet uncongested access would certainly be affected. I wonder also if farming land and/or livestock would be adversely affected by the proximity of such a large development.

I am aware of the new development in the moorland area above Parsonage Road, but assume that Blackburn can financially contain two major developments in a similar area.

Finally, I welcome housing developments which in themselves enable citizens of the town to breathe fresh country air and enjoy clear open views. That, in itself, is a positive healthy move forward. Mr & Mrs Ewans We moved here last July because of the wonderful view we have and these plans just break our hearts. The road is very very busy but you are going to make it 100 times worse. Mr & Mrs Prior As an existing resident I do not feel that there has been any attempt to consult us in any meaningful way or to encourage our active vocal participation in the planning process. Existing residents do not want this development and so have been rendered ineffective. There is no evidence of response to issues raised previously. Treatment of existing, council tax paying residents is shabby. You do not address our individual concerns because you have no intention of remedying them, we are clearly exploitable, expendable and disposable. Mrs Sheila Brindle Having returned from holiday I find information you have supplied regarding the North Blackburn Development Site. I have missed both local events as did others I have spoken to, mainly because of the timing of them on the run up to Easter.

We have been aware for some time that the rugby pitch area was ear-marked for development, but the proposed extent of the development to include green fields between Lammack Road and Whinney Lane, extending a good deal further north than the rugby pitch proposal, would seem to be out of order, not only because of the amount of traffic the proposed number of houses will generate but also because of the insult to the greenfield area of the Ribble Valley.

2 cars per household will generate thousands of extra journeys on the surrounding roads which are bordered in many cases by homes which have been here for hundreds of years and were not built to be subject to emissions from any vehicles, let alone emissions which are today known to be life threatening. To add the proposed number of homes to this area would be both harmful and unnecessary, and we would like to hear any argument which could in any way justify this level of environmental damage.

Because of the age of some properties which were built some two hundred plus years ago, and because as owners of the properties adjacent to what was a cobbled track which is now tarmacked over, we still own the subsoil under that tarmac to half way across the width of the lane. This fact was important in our bid many years ago now to make Barker Lane access only. The fact that a bus served the local cottagers none of whom had cars, meant that this didn’t happen, but it remains the case that Barker Lane is unclassified and as such is already saturated, and access only has not been ruled out.

We would need a firm guarantee that this proposed development within the boundary of Blackburn will have no effect whatsoever on the well-being of those living on country lanes in the Ribble Valley, and that any homes you can justify building will empty directly onto Yew Tree Drive, with no access onto Barker Lane via Lammack Road, or onto Whinney Lane. Diane Holden The tarmac on the dual carriageway is very noisy compared to previous layer, thus increasing noise nuisance. Have any traffic surveys/noise level surveys been done? Peter and James Notice from the plan you sent out that the garage colony near the bungalow no.82 Yew Tree Drive is not shaded red, and as owners of the garage colony I can Butterfield advise you the site will be available and vacant for development and should be included in the proposed masterplan development site. Gillian Tattersall Have no objection to the housing, however, as a resident on Whinney Lane I object strongly to the proposed junction on Whinney Lane for the following reasons:

1. Given that Whinney Lane is largely rural and very narrow as it climbs the hill towards Mellor Lane, I feel that it would be unable to cope with the increased traffic that the new development would bring and that an increased amount of traffic would be extremely hazardous to the children, cyclists and riders who use Whinney Lane on a daily basis. 2. As it nears the top, Whinney Lane is extremely narrow as there is a blind bend which has to approached very slowly. I worry that traffic using Whinney Lane as a shortcut to avoid Ramsgreave or to cut through Mellor en route to Preston and Bae Systems would increase the risk of a serious accident on Whinney Lane. 3. An increased volume of traffic on Mellor Lane would have serious consequences for cyclists and walkers who use Mellor Lane regularly and would increase the volume of traffic in the village. This would be particularly hazardous at 8:45am when the centre of the village is very busy with children walking to the village school. 4. Old Dad’s Farm (Mellor Lane, near the junction of Whinney Lane) offers livery for a high number of horses who are ridden out of the farm onto Mellor Lane on a daily basis. This is a thriving local business which would be profoundly affected by increased volumes of traffic on Whinney Lane and Mellor Lane as it would make riding horse on both lanes extremely hazardous. David & Judith Aston Whilst elements of the “masterplan” have been well thought out for its scale, I still have concerns that the council will not have the resolve to block/alter proposals submitted by developers that will totally change the nature/scope of the plan. Chris Heys The land proposed to be used for the development is designated Green Belt on your own information gateway - http://blackburn.devplan.org.uk/map.aspx?map=17&layers=all – As this land is next to Ribble Valley’s own Green Belt, any re-classification will have a detrimental impact on that area inside the Ribble Valley. I cannot see any information that consults RVBC on this.

Referring to Blackburn’s own Core Strategy objectives: a. Figure 7 on page 34, there is reference made to ‘Locations for new housing’ (Point CS 5). I do not see evidence of item E being adopted. The proposal is clearly outside of your Urban Boundary Policy which is identified on the map referenced in item 1. Above. b. Point8.7 says that executive homes should not be built in Green Belt, or at worst towards the end of the core strategy. c. Point 8.23 Fig 13 states that the ‘net market housing demand’ for terraced houses is zero. Trusting this is correct, why is the top section of the proposal for terraced houses. d. Point 10.20 states that any proposals should have a minimal environmental impact. This proposal will have a maximum impact on both the Green Belt in Blackburn and the adjoining RVBC by means of detrimental impact on the environment. e. Point 10.22 states ‘some development will never be acceptable, regardless of the economic or social benefits it offers. Examples of unacceptable impacts would relate to flood risk, landscape impact, creation of car journeys and so on’ For this development proposal, nearly all journeys will have to be by car, in particular the school run, going to the shops and commuting to work due to the lack of public transport servicing this area.

Dawood Ibrahim Is there land ear marked for potential future places of worship i.e. churched, mosques etc? To serve the requirements of the communities? Maureen Pallister I am concerned about the increase in traffic volume resulting from the building of houses, both on Ramsgreave and Yew Tree Drive and also on Whinney Lane. Traffic moves very quickly currently on the narrow lane and Barker Lane and this should be of some concern. The new entrances on Ramsgreave and Yew Tree will be controlled but also adds to already problematic traffic. Dr John Metcalfe I am appalled and dismayed that land designated as greenbelt has been proposed as a development site. Greenbelt land is defined as an area of open land around a city, on which building is restricted. The proposed development on the greenbelt land in question is maximising development not restricting it. This and the lack of information come across as nefarious. Susan Kay I am disappointed that the borough council has decided to develop on this narrow strip of Green Belt land that is a precious green corridor between Blackburn and the Ribble Valley. It is going to spoil the area for all those existing residents affected but also for those driving across Blackburn to access the M6 and Preston. Mr Livesey At the moment we rent a small piece of land to the rear of our garden and would hope to continue to do so. John & Marilyn We do not agree with the principle and proposal to build a high concentration of houses on Green Belt farmland. Preference should be given to developing 36

Stansfield brownfield urban sites. We request that this objection be passed to the relevant government body to be reconsidered. Please ensure that the dangers/impact of increased traffic on Whinney Lane is properly assessed and taken into consideration. Lyndsay Vause Development should take place with neighbours in mind, particularly re noise and dirt. Unknown As previously stated this should not be allowed to happen. Mr & Mrs Ralph We have notified the Council on several occasions that our septic tank overflows, with permission, onto the Whinney Lane field. We again notified the Council's Public Drainage Representative of this fact at the Public Consultation on 23rd March. He promised to contact us on the matter but to date we have heard nothing. Unknown This development is all on Green Belt land. This urban sprawl is detrimental to both to the locality and the country as a whole. Have all the possibilities for brown- belt land development been considered? Mr Gulam Akoo Blackburn council must be brave and say no to this terrible development. Ian Black Whinney lane is quiet country road providing leisure to hundreds of people per week. It is very busy already with traffic on an unstable potholed road. It is frankly dangerous Unknown The ideas supporting the development are positive and sympathetic towards its surrounds. Mr W Oakes As Whinney Lane residents our main concerns are increased traffic, increased danger of flooding and the loss of the existing rural environment. Peter Matthewman Some thought should be given to access being made available to the rear of properties on Lammack Road to the north of Yew Tree Drive. Rebekah Taylor My main concerns are: A) Building on Green Belt Land- unethical considering Blackburn have already met their housing quota. B) The plans show a main access point coming off Barker Lane down the back of Ramsgreave Drive- According to the plans this runs along my back garden. This is extremely undesirable- more consultation/explanation needed. C) Loss in value of property. This will 100% effect the re-sale value of my home and no compensation is being considered. D) The construction period- Living amongst the mess, noise and general inconvenience. The length of construction needs to be addressed. Unknown The housing should not include three story townhouses. The railway station at Brownhill or post office are not where they are marked on the map in the information pack about the proposals. Tom Steele Can you please clarify what you are planning for Kay Fold Lodge? This track is un-adopted by the council and has been maintained over at least the last 17 years exclusively by the residents who occupy the farm and converted farm buildings at its end. Mary James I am writing to protest about plans to build a new road junction on Whinney Lane. My grandson will have to walk on Whinney Lane to reach the Clitheroe school buses. A new road junction will mean an increase in traffic at just the times of day when he is heading for school – a very dangerous situation. In addition I, like many other retired people in Blackburn, enjoy the opportunity for gentle exercise that walking on this pretty rural lane gives me. This will not be possible if traffic levels are significantly increased. Amirah Karbhari The proposed junction onto Whinney Lane seriously needs to be taken into consideration. Not only will this ruin the tranquil and rural nature of Whinney Lane (no doubt one of the main reasons why many decided to reside here and further in Mellor in the first place), but the consequences it will have on road safety will be detrimental. Whinney Lane simply does not have the capacity to accommodate the increase in traffic this estate will create. As a resident of Whinney Lane, I have witnessed first-hand the dangers associated with this lane.

Consideration needs to be given to the existing hazards: • the dangerous bend • proximity of houses to the narrow road, which already causes problems when 2 oncoming vehicles are trying to pass. This is already a huge problem with drivers having to risk damaging their cars by moving so close to walls and other cars to avoid damaging/colliding with the oncoming traffic. Not to mention the trucks and tractors that regularly uses the route!!! • There are already numerous, very large potholes that seem to be ignored by the council. • Whinney Lane is already dangerous particularly in bad weather conditions. • The increase in traffic will almost certainly make it difficult for many of us residents to enter and exit our driveways.

We have paid significant prices specifically to live in a quiet, rural area with low traffic and beautiful views. These plans threaten all of these things! To put it simply, Whinney Lane is in no fit state to accommodate further traffic. There are alternative routes which can be considered, that do not jeopardise the peace residents of Whinney Lane and Mellor so widely enjoy. Cllr Alan Schofield The idea in the 'masterplan' of having a new junction on Whinney Lane needs to be dropped ie should be deleted. Reasons:

- Whinney Lane is rural, very narrow, has a blind bend and no pavements. It is used by dog walkers, walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders to reach the views and footpaths of Mellor, as well as by school children walking to school bus stops. A major increase in traffic will make Whinney Lane hazardous for all road users and will exacerbate the problems of dangerous traffic in Mellor.

- A highway safety and traffic management objective should be to encourage drivers to use the main roads - i.e. the A6119 - not country lanes or minor roads. The BwDBC masterplan includes proposed junctions on A6119 Yew Tree Drive/Ramsgreave Drive and those new access points should be sufficient.

If/when there are Planning Application(s) submitted to BwDBC, for the whole or any parts of the proposed development site, can you please advise me?

Has Ribble Valley BC Planning Department been advised / sent copies of the consultation information (as adjoining borough council immediately to the northern boundary of the proposed development site), to enable RVBC Planning & Development Committee members and/or RVBC officers to make necessary observations etc to BwDBC?

Has Lancashire County Council, as the adjoining highway authority, been consulted?

Emma James Presenting a petition to you against the plan to build a new road junction on Whinney Lane. Emma James Road junction opening onto Whinney Lane, a narrow, unlit, rural lane with no pavements and a blind bend. The plan includes a new road junction opening onto Whinney Lane. I believe this junction should not be built because it will encourage traffic from the new housing estate to use Whinney Lane and Mellor as a cut through to reach the A59 and the M6, rather than using the main road network. I think vehicles should be directed towards Yew Tree Drive/Ramsgreave Drive in the first instance. I understand that the new estate will create a general increase in vehicle traffic on all local roads but a major increase in traffic, driven by a direct link onto Whinney Lane, will make Whinney Lane particularly hazardous for all road users and will exacerbate the problems of dangerous traffic in Mellor.

Whinney Lane is rural, very narrow, has a blind bend and no pavements. There is no street lighting beyond the strip adjoining Yew Tree Drive. It is used by dog walkers, walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders, as well as by school children walking up to the bus stops for the Ribblesdale and Royal Clitheroe Grammar school buses on Mellor Lane. My child is currently at primary school and already walks to school occasionally. Next year he will be joining my neighbour’s children and will be walking, every day, on Whinney Lane to the school bus stops. Given that there are no pavements, I am very worried that he will not be safe if commuter traffic from the new estate is driving past at the same time that he is walking back and fore. There are a number of other families with young and school age children living on Whinney Lane, all of whom will be affected.

There are five separate footpaths opening from the surrounding fields directly on to Whinney Lane. These are popular with all sorts of pedestrians including: teenagers completing their Duke of Edinburgh Challenge (I know this because they regularly need to ask for directions); The Long Distance Walkers Association, many of whom used Whinney Lane to access their Red Rose 100 mile walk and Blackburn Road Runners who included Whinney Lane in a recent treasure hunt run. Again I think these pedestrians will be at risk if increased traffic is channelled along Whinney Lane.

Cyclists and cycling clubs already use Whinney Lane to access the hill climbs of Mellor and the very popular route over Mellor Lane and Ramsgreave. Higher traffic volumes on an unlit, narrow lane with a blind bend will endanger these existing cyclists. Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council is planning to increase the number of cyclists since Spur I of the Weavers Wheel Cycle Network (linking with Samlesbury Enterprise Zone) runs up Whinney Lane. I do not understand why there are plans to build a new road junction and directly feed more cars onto a lane which is being promoted as a cycle route. This seems to be in direct conflict with plans to encourage cycling in Blackburn. Again, if cyclists are being encouraged to commute to work by bike they will be doing this at exactly the same time that commuter traffic from the new estate will be travelling on Whinney Lane.

On the Masterplan the stone wall bordering Whinney Lane is shown as being a valuable piece of local landscape that should be kept “existing stone to be retained”. If a road junction is built then this wall will have to be partly demolished. Surely if the wall is protected, this should not be allowed.

Whinney Lane already provides valuable access to fresh air and exercise for lots of Blackburn residents. The Masterplan makes frequent reference to “pedestrian connections”, “footpath connections” and “attractive roads nearby”. I anticipate residents of the new estate will want to enjoy the local countryside. If a road junction is built onto Whinney Lane then one of the main attractions – the chance to walk and cycle safely on a quiet rural lane up to spectacular views – will be destroyed.

I do not think that there has been adequate consultation regarding the proposed new road junction. I believe the people who will be most impacted by increased commuter traffic are the residents of Mellor, Mellor Brook and Ramsgreave. These residents are also going to be affected by traffic from the housing development on Parsonage Road, driving over Ramsgreave and Mellor Lane to reach BAE Systems, the M6 and the A59.

The majority of these people have not been involved in the consultation and are not aware of the Masterplan. I think additional consultation should be made with community and parish groups in these areas. I would also like to know if Ribble Valley Borough Council has been contacted about the Masterplan, and in particular the proposed junction onto Whinney Lane.

The Masterplan contradicts some of the guidelines laid down in the Core Strategy (2011) Point CS5. Why is there insufficient land identified for housing development? I would like to see the market analysis. I would also like to know what are the market conditions that mean the Council is putting forward this Masterplan for land that is not in the inner urban area. Point 8.7 says that executive homes should not be built in Green Belt, or at worst towards the end of the core strategy. Why is the Masterplan suggesting that executive homes be built now? Point 8.23 Fig 13 shows that the net market housing demand for terraces is zero, so why is the top section of the Masterplan (I believe this is to be called Bullion Moss) for terraced houses. Point 10.20 says that any proposals should have a minimal environmental impact. This Masterplan will have a maximum impact on both the Green Belt in Blackburn and the adjoining Ribble Valley Borough Council through detrimental impact on the environment. Point 10.22 says that car journeys should not have an unacceptable impact. With this Masterplan all journeys will have to be by car, in particular going to the shops and commuting to work due to lack of public transport. I would like to mention here that the maps in the Masterplan include errors. There is no Post Office on Brownhill roundabout, as is marked in the Masterplan. The nearest Post Office is in Wilpshire, near to the (now closed) Bulls Head pub. This is further away and will necessitate more car journeys. Indeed there are multiple inaccuracies in the map of existing facilities including no marking of the sports fields and facilities at Pleckgate and Lammack, incorrect road layouts shown leading up to Pleckgate School and no indication of the development which is planned on Lammack football 38

fields. I do not think that people will want to walk across four lanes of fast moving traffic to reach to the shops or school. This is not safe a safe design for pedestrians. Point CS14 discusses the Green Belt and mentions urban boundary. I think that the urban boundary is the dual carriageway (Ramsgreave Drive, Yewtree Drive) and not a strip of housing on the other side.

Flooding Risk Several times during the heavy rains of last winter, rain water has pooled in the dip at the bottom of Whinney Lane. The fact that Whinney Lane is heavily potholed is witness to the volume of water that flows down it. I am concerned that, with the increase in hard surfaces and the loss of naturally absorbent grassland that will result from the building of so many houses, Whinney Lane and the houses alongside it will flood. I see that the Masterplan has taken into account flooding on Barker Lane/Lammack Road but has no plans relating to water run-off towards Whinney Lane.

Impact on Local Wildlife I note that there are several mentions of increasing biodiversity in the Masterplan. I would like to know why the Masterplan is favouring an increase in the number of common species over the loss of species which are in national decline. Specifically, the land between Whinney Lane and Lammack Road supports a breeding population of lapwings and curlews. Both of these bird species are UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) priority species. This means they have been identified as being the most threatened and requiring conservation action under the UK BAP. UK BAP is the responsibility of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). JNCC is the public body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. Originally established under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, JNCC was reconstituted by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 . I think that houses should not be built on land which supports breeding curlews and lapwings and that other land should be identified. I would like to know how Blackburn with Darwen Council will address this.

Building on Playing Fields I believe that building on Blackburn Rugby pitches (and also the separate development on Lammack football pitches) is in direct conflict with plans to support a healthier population who Blackburn who enjoy, and participate in regular, exercise. I think the approach that Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council has taken in developing sports centres and encouraging participation in sport through the Refresh Programme is excellent. Building on playing fields undermines the Refresh Programme. I would like to know how the Masterplan fits with other plans that the Council has relating to the health of Blackburn residents and if these have been included in the planning process.

Too Many Houses My final thought is that the overall scale of the housing development should be reduced. I understand that the Masterplan forms a key part of attempts to rejuvenate and support a thriving Blackburn. However I think the size of the development is too great. It will change the attractive nature of North Blackburn and result in a failure to attract economically active and prosperous residents.

L E Braithwaite While this plan was developed in response to the current government’s relaxing of laws wrt to greenbelt and its desire to increase housing stock nationally, increasing economic activity through a programme of building, it does not make economic sense for this site to be developed in the current climate.

Rationale: Analysis of all individual homes , bought and sold in the Beardwood and Lammack area in the last 11 years , up to present time, show that house prices of both newly built and older stock show , apart from a very few exceptions, show price growth of just over 2% per year and in the case of some of the newer housing, price loss. examples: Eden Park Gain 0.68% per year for last 11 years 24 Eden Park Gain 1.7% per year for last 4 years 1 Eden Park Zero growth over 6 years 15 Beardwood Park Loss 2.14% per year over 3 years 26 Whinney Lane Gain 1% per year 9 Wilton Close Loss 1.37% per year over 9 years 10 Country Mews Loss 1% per year over 10 years 2 Mellor Close Loss 0.5 % per year over 8 years 125 Whinney Lane Loss 2.08% per year over 8 years 71 Whinney Lane Gain 5.5% per year over 2 years 4 Calgary Avenue Gain 2.73% per year over 2 years

These are not isolated, manipulated statistics, but a picture of the current situation in the Borough, which your statisticians will find emerging when they do the maths on all individual house transactions in the area.

2. The plan would have been more credible, if the map had been accurate. To site the ‘railway station’ at Brownhill, instead of at Wilpshire, on page one is not even worthy of a schoolboy error. There is no post office at Brownhill. Indeed, even the letterbox on Lammack Road was removed without the local populace being informed. The surgery at Brownhill is actually sited on Whalley New Road at the junction with Haston Lee Avenue. This is a very busy road and there is no real parking, even for people visiting the Brownhill shops. It is a small surgery and therefore not fit for incorporating the needs of the new development plus other development on 39

Lammack Road. The siting of a new surgery is not shown on the plans. Four Lane Ends is shown twice on the same map.

3. Health and Safety The siting of a large, unattended pond at the bottom of Lammack Road in an area which according to the map, has no public amenities is a danger to unsupervised children who are naturally attracted to water. Knowingly siting ponds in this way will make Blackburn with Darwen liable to claims of negligence.

APPENDIX 6: Council response to key issues in residents’ consultation feedback

Key issue/s Council’s response: How issues raised have been taken into account in the masterplan PRINCIPLE of DEVELOPMENT

Development should not take place as site is located With the adoption of the Council’s Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies in December 2015 the site has now been within the Green Belt. formally removed from the Green Belt. The local plan identifies the site is a housing land allocation; Policy 16/2: North Blackburn Development Site.

Do not agree that the site should be developed when The Council regards this site as a key site in its strategy for housing growth and for the delivery of a wider choice of high quality, principally family brownfield sites are available elsewhere. housing, across the borough. The Council does acknowledge that brownfield sites are available across the borough and that these sites do have an important role in meeting the Council’s housing delivery agenda and the housing needs of local communities. A number of the Local Plan’s housing allocations are brownfield sites, in some instances former employment land. In some cases too development on these sites has stalled. Typically brownfield sites tend to be located in the inner areas of Blackburn and Darwen; a range of inherent factors such as activities related to previous use/contamination, high acquisition costs v low value market, affordability often present challenges/constraints on development, including increased delivery costs, which altogether impact on scheme viability. The Council is working with landowners/developers and housebuilders to identify how it can provide support to bring these sites forward. In a number of cases where the Council is the landowner we are evaluating a number of options for the procurement of a developer partner to bring these sites forward.

Lack of affordable housing within the borough The masterplan states that the Council’s affordable housing policy will apply to the development of this site.

Core Strategy Policy CS8: Affordable housing requirements indicates that all new residential development will be required to contribute towards the borough’s affordable housing requirements; the policy identifies a target of 20% of all new housing to be affordable. The policy does allow for flexibility i.e. provision off-site or via a commuted sum (developer contribution). Commuted sum monies may be used to bring empty properties back into use or assist the development of stalled brownfield sites elsewhere in the borough.

The requirement for and provision of affordable housing will be discussed and agreed with developers on a scheme by scheme basis at planning application stage.

TRANSPORT - HIGHWAYS/ACCESS and connectivity

Major concerns regarding potential access off A Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan have been prepared and agreed in dialogue with the highway authority. The role of a TA is to evaluate Whinney Lane. Residents feel this is inappropriate - and inform the transport implications of development to ensure that the development can be integrated into the broader transport network without it’s a narrow and winding country lane which has no detriment to the existing highway network, local residents and the wider community. It assess the travel needs of various modes of transport footpaths and is used regularly by pedestrians. including walking/cycling/bus and car: connectivity to surrounding services and facilities; potential access points to the site for car and non-car modes Concerned it will become a rat run of transport, and the capacity of nearby road junctions to deal with the anticipated increase in traffic.

Increased congestion on local network The findings/recommendations of the TA and Travel Plan have been used to inform the transport/traffic components of the masterplan framework.

Too many junctions proposed onto Yew Tree The TA has identified road locations for a number of access points off Yew Tree/Ramsgreave Drive and one off Whinney Lane to enable the individually Drive/Ramsgreave Drive owned sites to be brought forward independently; the precise positions will be located as part of the preparation of individual scheme details.

Speed of traffic on Yew Tree Dive/Ramsgreave Drive In addition the TA has identified a series of upgrades to existing crossings to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety, new pedestrian crossings to needs to be addressed. improve accessibility and enhance connectivity from the site to the surrounding area and improvements to the Yew Tree/Ramsgreave Drive corridor to create a more residential sense of place along the road corridor including schemes to support speed reduction from 50 to 40mph. The accompanying Need for sustainable methods of transport and Travel Plan sets out a series of measures to ensure that travel to and from the site by sustainable modes of transport are available including for connectivity across the site and to the surrounding example personalise journey planning and a neighbourhood based residents’ car club. area and local facilities. A full list of the proposed works is set out in the masterplan’s Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (IDP) and detailed in the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan documents. A developer contribution will be required towards the cost of the off-site highway works/improvements.

The public rights of way that cross the site have been retained.

The masterplan includes a set of key guiding principles that need to be taken into account in scheme detailing to ensure that overall the development 41

Key issue/s Council’s response: How issues raised have been taken into account in the masterplan creates an accessible and connected neighbourhood including attractive and safe links to surrounding facilities.

Developers will be required to complete and submit a detailed Transport Assessment with their planning applications that considers the transport implications of their scheme and the impact on the overall site. This is required to ensure that phased/individual developments will not prejudice the overall development of the site.

LOSS of OPEN SPACE/impact on WILDLIFE and BIODIVERSITY

Integration of high quality green infrastructure The masterplan includes a site wide green infrastructure framework including new and enhanced green/open spaces as an integral part of the framework within masterplan regarded as particularly development. The document sets out key guiding principles for the design and function of the proposed green spaces including a requirement to important. Green infrastructure should be used to create an attractive setting to the new housing, enhance connectivity between the greenspaces on site and to encourage and enhance biodiversity. provide connectivity through the developments. A key element of the green infrastructure framework is the creation of a green corridor alongside the brook that defines the northern boundary of the Would like the green corridor along northern edge to site and the borough. This green corridor is required to be multifunctional and to be responsive to the established landscape characteristics and local be a multi-use bridleway and provide opportunities biodiversity. It is expected this corridor will create a new Green Belt boundary and provide informal play, a combined footpath/cycle route (off-road for recreation/informal play, pedestrian and cycle link to Weavers Wheel cycle network) and sustainable urban drainage (SuDs). The masterplan does note that the developer/s should think creatively routes to allow residents to pursue healthy, active about the range of uses that could be provided within the greenspaces to enhance the amenity of local residents. Further details are set out in Section pursuits without having to use the main road. 2.4 The Illustrative Masterplan Framework/green infrastructure.

Need for a robust boundary treatment along the Developers will be responsible for acceptable arrangements for the management and maintenance of all green spaces across the whole site. edge of the Green Belt incorporating the stream and SuDs (sustainable urban drainage system). Developers will be required to carry out and submit with their planning application an ecological assessment to confirm wildlife and habitats Impact of development on wildlife and ecological established and using the site. The Council will expect the development to be designed to avoid any detrimental impact on biodiversity and include, if networks. Sensitive habitats need to be protected. needed, mitigation measures to minimise any identified impacts. Trees/hedgerows and watercourses need to be enhanced to support habitats.

SCALE of development/DESIGN RESPONSE to the SETTING

Concerns regarding the scale of A particular emphasis of the masterplan is to create a distinctive, high quality and well-designed neighbourhood. development/proposed number of units. What sort of housing mix? The masterplan does not indicate a precise number of units. However it does suggest that overall the development could deliver 450-550 new homes. At this stage, in advance of detailed proposals for each of the land parcels it in not possible to be certain how many new homes will be delivered. Design principles should respond to the setting overlooking the countryside. With regard to housing mix. It is expected that the development will include higher value market housing, principally larger family homes. The Loss of rural feel to the area and existing residents’ masterplan reiterates the Council’s aspiration supported by local plan policies that housing delivery on this site should offer a wider choice of housing, views. Existing features that contribute to the mostly 3, 4 and 5 bed houses in a variety of housing typologies including detached, semi-detached and terraced cottages, courtyard and mews character of the site such as dry stone walls should streets. be retained. A number of design related surveys and assessments have been carried out to inform the initial site analysis work and in turn advise on the form and Minimise impact of housing on Whinney Lane by content of the masterplan framework and accompanying design principles. These have included appraisals of the surrounding built form, site visibility incorporating trees/green areas. and key views, distinctive site features and landscape character. Section 1: Setting the Scene/site considerations details how these elements have influenced the proposed structure for the development. Section 2: Masterplan Framework sets out the design principles and guidance that all developers will be expected to apply to realise the masterplan’s vision for an attractive, high quality and sustainable neighbourhood. The design principles cover a wide range of scheme components including housing layout and mix, housing density, road/pedestrian and cycle network and green infrastructure. Four distinct character areas have been identified defined by their individual landscape spaces, scale, density, built form and setting. One of the key guiding principles for the character areas is that landscape elements form a key element of character with tree lined streets and shared surfaces taking references from the rural character of the site. Further detail on the character areas is provided in Section 2.5 Character area guidance.

FLOOD RISK and SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

Issues with drainage – there is already an issue with A desk based review of potential flood risk constraints and drainage considerations has been carried out, in discussion with the Council’s Drainage flooding at the bottom of Barker Lane and Whinney Team (Lead Local Flood Authority), to inform the masterplan framework. The review concluded that there is no risk of fluvial flooding. However some Lane. areas may be at risk from surface water flooding. This is manageable and will be addressed as part of the developer’s detailed drainage strategy. The 42

Key issue/s Council’s response: How issues raised have been taken into account in the masterplan drainage strategy will be required to demonstrate an acceptable surface water runoff rate and suitable measures to control run-off on site. The masterplan notes the Council’s preference for the surface water drainage system to be an above ground SuDs solution. On this basis the masterplan includes provision for SuDs within the green infrastructure framework; the principal storage areas have been located and integrated within the green corridor along the northern boundary.

Further details of the flood risk assessment and guidance on requirements for drainage/drainage strategy are set out in Section 1.7: Site considerations and 2.4: The Illustrative Masterplan Framework/Green Infrastructure.

The Council will require a site specific Flood Risk Assessment for the whole site to be completed and submitted as supporting information at planning application stage. This will inform the detailed requirements for the drainage strategy.

IMPACT on AMENITY OF RESIDENTS

Impact on amenity of existing residents, both during It is inevitable that there will be some disruption during construction. However the Council will ensure, in discussion with developers at the planning construction and as a result of the development. application stage that this is managed to cause minimal disturbance for example by conditioning working hours on site as part of the planning consent. During construction the developer will be expected keep local residents informed of any works that may affect them. Impact on Ribble Valley residents, particularly those in Mellor needs to be considered. The Council’s local plan policies and supporting guidance address amenity considerations. Local Plan Part 2 Policy 8 – Development and people requires that any new development must demonstrate that it would secure a satisfactory level of amenity for surrounding uses and for the occupants of the development with reference to noise, vibration, light, dust, other pollution or nuisance, privacy/overlooking and the relationship between buildings. Developers will be expected to demonstrate in the material submitted to support their planning applications how the proposals meet these policy requirements. All proposals will be scrutinised to ensure such considerations are taken into account for the benefit of both existing residents and the occupants of the new homes. This would include residents within Ribble Valley. Ribble Valley Borough Council and the neighbouring Ribble Valley Parish Councils will be notified of all planning applications for development along the shared boundary.

IMPACT on LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Impact of increased demand on local services in The Council’s Children’s Services Department have completed an assessment of the education provision in the borough including a review of capacity particular schools, GPs/health services, bus services to meet anticipated demand from the Council’s key housing growth sites. This concluded that there is sufficient capacity within local primary schools and shops. to meet the pupil yield from the anticipated housing development for the initial few years of the site’s growth. This will be kept under review and proposals to create additional primary school places for the area are being developed with the intention being to expand existing primary school Masterplan should include a site wide infrastructure provision in the area to meet the additional demand for places. strategy. The masterplan confirms that a developer contribution will be required towards any required increase in primary school capacity.

There is considered to be sufficient capacity within the borough’s secondary schools to meet the additional demand.

With regard to health services. The Council is in discussion with the Blackburn with Darwen Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), who is responsible for commissioning healthcare and well-being services for the borough’s residents, to ensure that plans and investment are put in place to provide sufficient healthcare facilities in the locality to meet the additional demand from development across the wider north Blackburn area.

The Council would be supportive of new local shops and additional bus services. However ultimately these will be commercially led decisions by the private businesses/service providers.

The masterplan includes an Infrastructure and Development Plan which identifies the required infrastructure works and respective delivery organisation for highway improvements and Travel Plan, affordable housing, education, surface water drainage and utilities.

LOSS of VIEWS/COMPENSATION Will the Council be making compensation payments The Council will not be making any compensation payments to recompense for the development. to residents for the loss of views from their homes and the detrimental impact of the development The Council recognises and is not insensitive to the fact that many residents have enjoyed an open aspect with wide views of the surrounding including anticipated loss of value on their property? countryside. However there is a need for housing growth across the borough over the next 15 years. This site has been assessed as a suitable site and is allocated for housing development in the Council’s Local Plan Part 2.

Loss of views is not a material consideration in the determination of a planning application i.e. it is not a reason for refusing scheme proposals. 43

Key issue/s Council’s response: How issues raised have been taken into account in the masterplan

This site is considered to be an attractive site for higher value, principally larger 3, 4 and 5 bed family homes and as such will make a significant contribution to widening the choice of housing available in the local area. This should have a positive impact on the local housing market.

COUNCIL regard for resident’s comments

Lack of confidence that the Council would take This appendix explains how the masterplan has taken resident’s comments into account. resident’s comments into account in the final version masterplan. The Council recognises that it cannot shape the masterplan to meet every concern/request and in those cases where this was not achievable we have tried here to explain why.

Detailed proposals had already been completed. The Council would like to assure residents that detailed scheme proposals have not been prepared at this stage. These will be prepared by the landowners and or their appointed developers for submission for planning consent.

The Council is expecting all detailed schemes to be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the masterplan.

It is anticipated that once the masterplan has been adopted detailed proposals on the individual land parcels will be submitted for planning consent. Section 3: Delivery includes an indicative phasing plan to show the anticipated sequence of development. It may be that several phases are included within a planning application.

At the planning application stage there will be opportunities as part of the review of each application for residents to examine and comment on scheme proposals before any decisions are made.

RUGBY CLUB relocation Concerns that the Rugby Club facilities would be lost. The Rugby Club has acknowledged that if/when the Rugby Club does relocate the new site will need to be fully operational before the north Blackburn site is released.

APPENDIX 7: Stakeholder agency feedback and Council response

Organisation Comments Council response

Tim Bettany- No comments to make. No response required. Simmons Canal and River Trust Gillian Laybourn No comments to make. No response required. Historic England Allison Chippendale No comments to make. No response required. Health & Safety Executive Diane Clarke No comments to make. No response required. Network Rail Robert Deanwood No comments to make. Amec foster wheeler on behalf of National Grid Jenny Hope Understand that the masterplan for this site is at a very early stage and therefore we are unable to United Utilities will be consulted when a planning application(s) United Utilities comment in detail on any proposals. It may be necessary to coordinate any infrastructure improvements for development of the site is submitted which will allow them with the delivery of development. In accordance with paragraphs 156 and 162 of the NPPF we recommend to review the proposals and comment in more detail. the final Development Brief incorporates the following detail, in relation to infrastructure provision: The masterplan will be a high level document to shape the “Once more details are known, for example the approach to surface water management and proposed site’s development and the Council acknowledges that United connection points for the foul sewer network, it may be necessary to coordinate the delivery of Utilities will be required to comment on the more detailed development with timing for the delivery of any infrastructure improvements.” proposals at application stage.

For further information regarding our existing assets and any necessary upgrading works that may be An infrastructure strategy will be prepared as part of the required to assist delivery of residential dwellings on this land, we encourage all interested parties to masterplan preparation. discuss this further with Developer Services at the earliest possible opportunity ([email protected]). The Council will require developers to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment and prepare a Drainage Strategy for the site which Surface Water Drainage will assess the potential flood risk from all sources of flooding United Utilities wishes to highlight the challenge that is often presented by fragmented ownership. Whilst and identify the most suitable measures to manage drainage masterplans often aspire to secure the delivery of development in a co-ordinated and holistic manner, this and surface water run-off. This will include the provision of is often a major challenge in practice. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs) to manage surface water We encourage Blackburn with Darwen Council to carefully consider the deliverability and practical issues and prevent flooding in a sustainable way which will ensure associated with sites in fragmented ownership. On such sites, we strongly encourage the Council to surface water flooding is no worse than it is at the present challenge the site promoters to present a clear site wide infrastructure strategy. We strongly recommend time. that this is addressed in advance of any planning application submission(s). Opportunities to incorporate water efficiency measures as part On greenfield sites, applicants will be expected to demonstrate that the current natural discharge solution of the design process will be highlighted within the masterplan. from a site is at least mimicked. Developers should, where viable, consider the use of permeable paving and cycleways, increased landscaping and a reduction in the use of hardstanding as a means to reduce surface water run-off rates. We would also encourage the use of SUDs as part of the proposals for this site as a means to mitigate flooding. Proposals should have regard to the surface water hierarchy:

Surface water should be discharged in the following order of priority: 1. An adequate soakaway or some other form of infiltration system. 2. An attenuated discharge to watercourse. 3. An attenuated discharge to public surface water sewer. 4. An attenuated discharge to public combined sewer.

Every option should be investigated before discharging surface water into a public sewerage network. A discharge to groundwater or watercourse may require the consent of the Environment Agency. 45

Organisation Comments Council response

Applicants wishing to discharge to the public sewer will need to submit clear evidence demonstrating why alternative options are not available. Approved development proposals will be expected to be supplemented by appropriate maintenance and management regimes for surface water drainage schemes. On large sites it may be necessary to ensure the drainage proposals are part of a wider, holistic strategy which coordinates the approach to drainage between phases, between developers, and over a number of years of construction. New development should manage surface water run-off in a sustainable and appropriate way. Developers should look at ways to incorporate an element of betterment within their proposals. This approach is in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF. United Utilities’ Assets A desktop review of the proposed site indicates the presence of existing United Utilities assets within the site and a formal easement running from the pumping station adjacent to Lammack Road and along Yew Tree Drive. With regards to the easement, any proposals should be discussed in more detail and agreed with Stephen Tomlinson ([email protected]) as this may have implications for the layout of any development.

With regards to the location of our existing assets, United Utilities offer a fully supported mapping service and we recommend interested parties contact our Property Searches Team on 0370 751 0101 to obtain maps of the site. Due to the public sewer transfer, not all sewers are currently shown on the statutory sewer records, if a sewer is discovered during construction; please contact a Building Control Body to discuss the matter further.

Water Efficiency Whilst United Utilities acknowledges that the Code for Sustainable Homes has now been scrapped as a result of the Government’s ‘Housing Standards Review’ consultation, we suggest the Council should consider water efficiency measures and the design of new development within the Development Brief as follows:

“The design of new development should incorporate water efficiency measures. New development should maximise the use of permeable surfaces and the most sustainable form of drainage, and should encourage water efficiency measures including water saving and recycling measures to minimise water usage.”

United Utilities wishes to highlight the importance of incorporating water efficiency measures as part of the design process for all new development. There are a number of methods that developers can implement to ensure their proposals are water efficient, such as utilising rainwater harvesting and greywater harvesting for example.

Improvements in water efficiency help to reduce pressure on water supplies whilst also reducing the need for treatment and pumping of both clean and wastewater. It is a part of the delivery of sustainable development.

Summary Moving forward, we respectfully request that Blackburn with Darwen Council continues to consult with United Utilities during the ongoing preparation of their Masterplan. We are keen to continue working in partnership with the Council to ensure that all new growth can be delivered sustainably, and with the necessary infrastructure available, in line with delivery targets. Warren Hilton In terms of the development as a whole, we would not expect the site in itself to have a severe impact Comments noted. Highways England upon the Strategic Road Network (SRN) that we operate (nearest point of access is M65 Junction 6).

However, it could be anticipated that a proportion of the occupants of the site (particularly those occupying the lower density housing areas of the site with provision for car ownership), may use the SRN when travelling to other areas, or indeed to access other areas within the borough. In general, we would therefore encourage the eventual masterplan for the area to enable the site to make the best of any opportunities that it could do to facilitate and support the use of sustainable transport options by those eventually occupying the new homes.

‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ was superseded in October 2014, and although it is no longer policy, 46

Organisation Comments Council response

the document is still regarded as a useful guide. The guidance states that for C3Housing land uses where over 80 units are proposed, a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan will be required as part of an eventual application for planning permission. In accordance with this, Highways England would expect to see both documents submitted in support of any eventual development proposals for the site. The Transport Assessment should take into consideration the potential impact of the development upon the M65 at Junction 6 during peak times, take into account the potential phasing of development whilst also being in accordance with DfT Circular 02/2013 ‘The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development’. Further detail regarding how the development will encourage uses of sustainable transport modes should also be included within the Transport Assessment. Fiona Pudge The site currently accommodates a rugby union ground with 5 pitches owned and used by Blackburn RUFC. Comments noted. Sport England The Council’s 2013 Playing Pitch Strategy also identifies this site as being in use by Lancashire Wolverines American Football Team. The Key Development Considerations for the North Blackburn Development Site allocation states that the Rugby Club site There is no mention of the Rugby ground within the masterplan so it is unknown whether this will be cannot be developed unless and until the Club has relocated relocated elsewhere or if the Rugby club and Rugby Football Union have been consulted. I have consulted within the borough. with the RFU Area Facilities Manager who has the following comments to make: - The relocation of the rugby club must follow recognised planning legislation and provide a like for like At this stage the Rugby Club has not made any decisions replacement of the facilities that will be lost as a result of the plan regarding its relocation. If/when the rugby club do relocate the - The replacement facilities must confirm to RFU and/or Sport England specifications for changing rooms, new site will need to be fully operational before the north floodlights, clubhouse design, car parking, and natural turf pitches. Blackburn site is released. - If an Artificial Grass Pitch is proposed for the new site then this pitch must conform to World Rugby Regulation 22 standards and achieve compliance with the specifications outlined in RFU guidance note 7. The Club will be responsible for finding a suitable site for its relocation. Sport England will be consulted on any proposals. The rugby ground is well used and must be replaced in accordance with paragraph 74(ii) of NPPF and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy. Both policies require sites to be replaced with an equivalent or better quantity and quality provision. Sport England will be a statutory consultee on any subsequent planning application to develop the North Blackburn site because of the presence of the rugby ground. It should be made absolutely clear at this point that Sport England will not accept qualitative improvements to an existing playing field to mitigate the loss of this site. A genuine creation of new playing field must be provided to ensure the proposal is policy compliant. In addition the replacement rugby ground and ancillary facilities must be implemented and ready for use prior to development commencing on the North Blackburn site to ensure continuity of use.

It is not clear who will be responsible for replacing the rugby ground. Will the Council be working with the Club and RFU to replace the ground prior to any applications being submitted or will the onus be on the applicant?

Recommendation: Sport England strongly suggest including a key principle of the development that ensures the rugby ground is replaced prior to the commencement of development. It should be made clear where the responsibility lies with replacing the rugby ground (rugby club, Council or applicant). Sarah Fotheringham If there are no wind turbines as part of the development, would have no objections. No response required. Met office Beth Wolfenden Evidence documents from NICE to be considered: The intention is that the masterplan for this housing allocation Blackburn with PH17 Physical Activity for Children & Young People (link attached to response) site will be a high level document setting out a development Darwen Public Health PH8 Physical Activity & the Environment (link attached to response) framework for the whole site. The framework will identify the Team overarching structuring elements for the development and key PH17 Recommendation 4: planning the provision of outdoor spaces to ensure adequate and safe provision design principles including housing mix, access and movement, for outdoor play. green infrastructure and drainage. As the site is in multiple ownership and likely to come forward in phases over time the PH8 Recommendations 1 & 2: ensure the potential for physical activity is maximised and prioritise the council felt this was the most appropriate level of detail; this need for people to be physically active, including those with reduced mobility, and for this to be part of also gives the individual developer’s design team an element of daily life. flexibility in scheme detailing. Ensure the development is easily accessible by foot and by bicycle and have easy access to public transport to facilitate active travel. At this stage the Rugby Club has not made any decisions Traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed regarding its relocation. If/when the rugby club do relocate the Creation of safe routes to local schools to encourage active travel. new site will need to be fully operational before the north Blackburn site is released. Everybody Active Every Day Oct 2014 (link attached to response) Active environments – land use has a 47

Organisation Comments Council response

big impact on health. Children become more active when they live closer to parks, playgrounds and An HIA screening was completed for the Local Plan, prior to recreation areas and the health of older people increases where there is more space for walking near adoption; the outcome was that an HIA was not needed at this home with tree lined streets nearby. plan/policy making stage. The expectation is that an HIA would be required at the more detailed planning applications stage Sport England Active Design Oct 2015 (link attached to response) when detailed proposals are available which allow a more Ten principles of active design to include: informed assessment of the impacts of the proposed - Networks of multifunctional open space with playgrounds and activity areas located within easy development. walking distance of local community - Connected walking and cycling routes and prioritised over other forms of transport The established PROW will be incorporated into the layout and - Appropriate infrastructure with high quality streets and spaces to facilitate all forms of activity. design of each phase of the new development.

What are the proposals for the re-siting of Blackburn Rugby Club as part of this new development?

Has a Health Impact Assessment been conducted yet?

Can you confirm the existing walking paths/rights of way will be incorporated into the design of the development? David Dunlop Movement & Connectivity (section 3) Comments noted and these will be taken into consideration The Wildlife Trust for The indicative layout on the map in this section appears to ignore the extant hedgerows and trees, but the when preparing the masterplan. Lancashire, situation, in that respect, is covered in the Green Infrastructure section. Is this the result of an Manchester & North unintentional drafting error in section 3? If not, there is an internal contradiction and the Movement and The masterplan will also include a requirement for developers Merseyside Connectivity indicative layout is not apparently consistent with the stated development aim of ‘enhancing to seek opportunities and/or enhance ecological networks, habitats’. linkages and corridors that permeate through the site, as required by local plan policies. Under the heading “Key guiding principles for the masterplan are to create…” there is currently no mention of enhancement of locally characteristic semi-natural habitats and/or native species population – An ecological assessment will be undertaken as part of the particularly Habitats & Species of Principal Importance in England (s41 Natural Environment & Rural masterplan preparation. This will assess the impact of all Communities Act 2006) – nor of the retention of extant wildlife habitat features such as hedgerows and phases of the proposal on protected species. trees. The masterplan will require the development to create a high Green infrastructure (section 4) quality, continuous network of green infrastructure as an We suggest that there should be specific mention of enhancing biodiversity here and of the need for an integral part of the proposals. The green infrastructure is ecological assessment; preferably as part of this masterplan. If that not be reasonably practicable – and it expected to be multi-functional offering opportunities for is almost certainly preferable, given the need for landscape-scale delivery of Nature’s recovery (c/f NPPF recreation/informal play, pedestrian and cycle routes for people para 117; your authority’s SPD on Green Infrastructure & Ecological Networks, para 1.16) – then one to moving within and through the development, the creation of a accompany each planning application. robust northern boundary along the edge of the Green Belt incorporating the stream, and the inclusion of sustainable Vision (section 6) urban drainage solutions. The annotation below is mine: The development will improve connections to existing open a) The indicative Masterplan shows a rectangular area of green-space beyond the northern boundary of spaces close to the site and the countryside beyond. The the development site. That shape would suggest a formal green-space, rather than a semi-natural one developer will be encouraged to think creatively about the where biodiversity enhancement would be central. Clarification is necessary. If the green-space is range of uses that could be provided with the green spaces and intended to be formal, it is nonetheless possible to integrate some biodiversity gain into development of will be responsible for making arrangements for the long term green-space managed primarily for formal recreation, but clearly it constrains the developer’s options in management and maintenance of all green spaces on the site. that regard. The masterplan will ensure that the development creates an b) A “green corridor” is shown alongside the watercourse forming the northern boundary of the attractive network of green spaces incorporating existing development site. It is designated as a “buffer” between the development and adjacent agricultural features such as watercourses, hedgerows and trees and land. If this “corridor” is to function as part of an effective (wetland-centred?) ecological network, it will provide additional features to create an attractive new neighbourhood. The masterplan will include a requirement to need to be wide enough to operate, and be appropriately designed and managed to secure that service retain, where possible, the dry stone wall along Whinney Lane in tandem with the provision of pedestrian access. More detail would be welcome, not least on in order to maintain the character of the area. recommended minimum width. You may wish to consult your authority’s ecological adviser on this and

on any Species of Principal Importance associated with the watercourse: Water Vole (Arvicola The established PROW will be incorporated into the layout and terrestris) springs immediately to mind, as one that also has protection under the terms of the Wildlife design of each phase of the new development. & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

Organisation Comments Council response

c) In relation to our point b) above, there is no mapped indication or written description of how the development site links to the extant surrounding ecological networks, nor how its sequential development in accordance with the Masterplan might be expected to enhance, repair, restore or create such networks. Some detail is required.

The watercourse might usefully be enhanced in terms of its channel profile and by better connection with its local floodplain. If it be designated as ‘main river’, then external liaison with the Environment Agency will, of course, be necessary; otherwise, with your colleagues delivering your council’s role as Lead Flood Authority.

The nearest county-level Local Wildlife Site (Pleckgate Rough BHS 63SE11) lies just across Ramsgreave Drive from the development site. It is identified principally for its acid grassland vegetation community, and for the presence of Compact Bog-moss (Sphagnum compactum), a county rarity. Pleckgate Rough Local Wildlife Site is currently rather isolated from areas of similar quality habitat and, to the best of our knowledge, not actively managed for nature conservation. Management of it and/or creation and restoration of similar additional heathland and acid grassland habitat in association with the proposed development could reduce such isolation and should be encouraged.

d) The indicative layout appears reasonable in terms of inclusion of a network of linked open-spaces. However, in our experience these are all too often reduced, simplified and even lost at the stage of a planning application. Identification in the Masterplan of a minimum hectarage for provision of open- space (including a minimum for semi-natural open space) should guard against such an eventuality.

Teresa Taylor This is against the BwD / RVBC boundary and Mellor residents have concerns about how such a As we move into the next, more detailed stage of preparing the Clerk to Mellor Parish development will affect their residential amenity. masterplan we will be making contact with officers at both Council Lancashire County Council (LCC) and Ribble Valley Borough Whilst it is appreciated that this masterplan is in the early strategic stage, could we highlight the serious Council to discuss the cross boundary issues that need to be concern of the current proposed ingress & egress for Whinney Lane? This would obviously have major addressed and taken into account in the masterplan document, impact on Mellor residents and we would wish to have further consultation on any developments in the principally traffic/transport. masterplan as soon as you are able to update the Parish Council. We will also contact LCC to discuss the transport issues that The Parish Council would wish to reserve further comments until more information is available. have been raised and the final version transport assessment that will be required to support the masterplan framework.

Miss Kathryn Kelsall Green Infrastructure The masterplan will include a section on Green Infrastructure Natural England The Master plan should provide a clear focus in relation to Green Infrastructure (GI) provision and where to identify how such provision will be incorporated into new possible such provision should be incorporated into new development with assistance from developer development. This is required by Policy 40 of the borough’s contributions. Local Plan Part 2.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines GI as “a network of multi-functional green space, The masterplan will refer to the Council’s adopted Green urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits Infrastructure & Ecological Networks SPD which sets out how for local communities” and requires Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to set out a strategic approach in green infrastructure and ecological networks can be their Local Plans, “planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of incorporated within scheme designs. networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure” (paragraph 114). The masterplan will include a requirement for developers to As well as amenity and recreational benefits, the Natural Environment White Paper highlights the natural seek opportunities and/or enhance ecological networks, environment importance of GI in planning; ‘We need urban green infrastructure to complete the links in linkages and corridors that permeate through the site, as our national ecological network. Urban green space allows species to move around within, and between, required by local plan policies. An ecological assessment will be towns and the countryside. Even small patches of habitat can benefit movement. Urban green undertaken as part of the masterplan preparation. This will infrastructure is also recognised as one of the most effective tools available to us in managing assess the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected environmental risks such as flooding and heat waves. It is part of the answer to the challenges posed by a species. changing climate’ (para 2.78, White Paper). Natural England will be consulted on any planning ‘We want urban green spaces to be recognised as an essential asset and factored into the development of application(s) that come forward for developing the site. all our communities. They will be managed to provide diverse functions for the benefit of people and wildlife.

Organisation Comments Council response

They will cool urban areas and reduce flood risk, helping communities to adapt to a changing climate. They will continue to play a key role in regeneration projects throughout England, supporting local economic growth. Greener neighbourhoods and improved access to nature will improve public health and quality of life and reduce environmental inequalities.

Urban green spaces will provide varied ecosystem services and will contribute to coherent and resilient ecological networks’ (Para 2.80, White Paper).

There may be significant opportunities to design in or retrofit green infrastructure in urban environments. These can be realised through: - green roof systems and roof gardens; - green walls to provide insulation or shading and cooling; - new tree planting or altering the management of land associated with transport corridors (e.g. management of verges to enhance biodiversity). - protection of natural resources, including air quality, ground and surface water and soils, needs to be considered in all urban design plans.

Natural England’s Accessible Natural Greenspace standards (ANGSt) ANGSt aims to address the spatial distribution of natural greenspace, its accessibility at different size limits and the area of Local Nature Reserve per head of population with the aim of securing access to natural greenspace close to where people live. These standards recommend that people living in towns and cities should have an accessible natural greenspace: (ANGST) - Of at least 2 hectares in size, no more than 300 metres (5 minutes’ walk) from home; - At least one accessible 20 hectare site within two kilometres of home; - One accessible 100 hectare site within five kilometres of home; - One accessible 500 hectare site within ten kilometres of home; - Statutory Local Nature Reserves at a minimum level of one hectare per thousand population

It is important that the plan seeks to conserve and enhance landscape (and townscape) character, quality and local distinctiveness, including elements of the historic landscape.

Biodiversity Proposals for new development will need to consider environmental impacts. Development should avoid adverse biodiversity impacts and mitigate or compensate only when this is not possible, in line with NPPF paragraph 118.

We recommend that development proposals should seek opportunities to create and/or enhance ecological networks, linkages and corridors that permeate through the site.

Biodiversity Duty Biodiversity is of course a core component of sustainable development, underpinning economic development and prosperity, and has an important role to play in developing locally distinctive and sustainable communities. All local authorities and other public authorities in England and Wales have a Duty to have regard to the conservation of biodiversity in exercising their functions. The Duty aims to raise the profile and visibility of biodiversity, to clarify existing commitments with regard to biodiversity and to make it a natural and integral part of policy and decision making. The Duty is set out in Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Communities Act (NERC) 2006 and states that:

“Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

Protected Species An assessment of the impact of all phases of the proposal on protected species (including, for example, great crested newts, reptiles, birds, water voles, badgers and bats) will need to be undertaken. Natural 50

Organisation Comments Council response

England does not hold comprehensive information regarding the locations of species protected by law, but advises on the procedures and legislation relevant to such species. Records of protected species should be sought from appropriate local biological record centres, nature conservation organisations, groups and individuals; and consideration should be given to the wider context of the site for example in terms of habitat linkages and protected species populations in the wider area, to assist in the assessment.

The conservation of species protected by law is explained in Part IV and Annex A of Government Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation: Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System. The area likely to be affected by the proposal should be thoroughly surveyed by competent ecologists at appropriate times of year for relevant species and the survey results, impact assessments and appropriate accompanying mitigation strategies included as part of the application. In order to provide this information there may be a requirement for a survey at a particular time of year. Surveys should always be carried out in optimal survey time periods and to current guidance by suitably qualified and where necessary, licensed, consultants. Natural England has adopted standing advice for protected species which includes links to guidance on survey and mitigation.

The Standing Advice should not be treated as giving any indication or providing any assurance in respect of European Protected Species (EPS) that the proposed development is unlikely to affect the EPS present on the site; nor should it be interpreted as meaning that Natural England has reached any views as to whether a licence is needed (which is the developer’s responsibility) or may be granted.

Soil and Agricultural Land Quality Impacts from the development should be considered in light of the Government's policy for the protection of the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land as set out in paragraph 112 of the NPPF. We also recommend that soils should be considered with regards to sustainable use of land and the ecosystem services they provide as a natural resource in line with paragraph 109 of the NPPF. Graham Burgess At its meeting on 6th April 2016, the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Governing Body considered the This will be discussed further with the CCG throughout the Blackburn with above proposals and expressed it strong support for the above development; as it adds to the variety and preparation of the masterplan. Darwen Clinical quality of housing in Blackburn with Darwen which, in turn, makes a contribution to the economic strength Commissioning of the Borough and broader health of the population. Group The CCG however, wished to express its strong view that this development results in a significant increase in the population in the area and, therefore, demand upon the GP surgeries which serve it. These surgeries are already under considerable pressure and are also accommodated in buildings which do not meet the expectations of modern health requirements. This situation would be exacerbated by additional housing in that area.

The CCG, therefore, would request that, as part of the development plan for this area, the Council enters into discussions with the CCG as a priority to find a solution which will improve the accommodation for GPs and the services they can offer to its residents.